National Grid Battery Storage Investigation Report ... Storage Investigation Report ... EFCC Battery...

Enhanced Frequency

Control Capability

(EFCC)

National Grid

Battery Storage Investigation Report - November 2015

EFCC Battery Storage Investigation

Report November 2015

Page 1

Executive Summary ................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 1 Purpose of this report.......................................................................................................4

Chapter 2 Use of Battery Storage within the EFCC project..............................................................6

2.1 The Main Drivers for using battery storage ....................................................................7

2.2 Innovation and Learning Outcomes................................................................................7

2.3 Impact of Future Energy Scenarios on system operability...............................................8

2.4 International Experience ..............................................................................................10

Chapter3 Evaluation of existing battery storage in the UK............................................................11

3.1 Timescales for EFCC trials .............................................................................................11

3.2 Short-listed battery units..............................................................................................11

3.3 Smarter Network Storage (SNS) at Leighton Buzzard...................................................12

3.4 Rise Carr (Darlington) ...................................................................................................13

3.5 Willenhall .....................................................................................................................15

Chapter 4 Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery Storage......................................................16

Chapter 5 Commercial Analysis of shortlisted storage units ..........................................................18

5.1 Cost summary for Smarter Network Storage (SNS).......................................................18

5.2 Cost summary for Rise Carr (Darlington).......................................................................19

5.3 Cost summary for Willenhall ........................................................................................20

5.4 Cost Summary for Belectric Energy Buffer Unit.............................................................21

5.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................21

Chapter 6 Opportunity for combining solar PV and battery storage in EFCC ................................24

6.1 Trials for Solar PV and Battery Storage .........................................................................24

6.2 Belectric Contribution with solar PV and battery storage .............................................25

Chapter 7 Cost Benefit Analysis for future roll out of hybrid battery storage and solar PV............26

7.1 Cost Benefit Analysis Introduction................................................................................26

7.2 Cost benefit analysis: methodology and results............................................................27

7.2.1 High-level overview....................................................................................................... 27

7.2.2 Future additional enhanced response requirements.................................................... 28

7.2.3 Future additional costs to consumers ........................................................................... 31

7.2.4 Battery availability and service provision assumptions ................................................ 33

7.2.5 Battery rollout projections ............................................................................................ 34

7.2.6 Solar deployment and battery adoption projections.................................................... 35

7.2.7 Market potential for the hybrid project and possible consumer savings ..................... 37

7.2.8 Economic viability considerations ................................................................................. 42

7.3 Additional potential benefits........................................................................................45

7.4 Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................45

Chapter 8 Revised Project Schedule for Work Package 2.4 (Battery Storage) .............................47

Table of Contents

Page 2



Chapter 9 Legacy options for Belectric Battery Storage Unit .........................................................48

Chapter 10 Recommendations .........................................................................................................49

Appendix A Questionnaire sent to DNOs ..........................................................................................50

Appendix B Existing battery storage site evaluations .......................................................................51

Appendix C NPG Rise Carr 2.5MVA Battery Unit Detailed Costs.....................................................55

Appendix D Cost of Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery Storage .........................................56

Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis Assumptions ...............................................................................57

Appendix F Consumer cost of additional Enhanced Frequency Response......................................61

Appendix G Solar farm participation projections................................................................................62

Appendix H Availability requirements for enhanced frequency response .........................................63

Appendix I Data Tables for Figures 6 - 8 .........................................................................................64

Appendix J EFCC Project Hierarchy.................................................................................................65

References............................................................................................................................................66

Page 3



Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide the summary of the investigation into the use of existing

battery storage facilities for the Network Innovation Competition funded project; Enhanced Frequency

Control Capability (EFCC). As part of this investigation, National Grid carried out the following

activities; starting from December 2014:

Further reviewing the battery storage technologies suitable for demonstrations of fast

frequency response in the EFCC project (in addition to the previous work carried out before

submission of EFCC proforma to Ofgem);

Engaging with the owners of these battery storage facilities which their technology was

deemed to be suitable for providing fast frequency response;

Carrying out site visit, request detailed implementation cost, timeline, and explore the

technical and commercial aspects of use of one of those facilities; and

Carrying out an impact assessment; taking into account the overall cost to the project, project

delivery risk and value to consumers.

Further on, we have performed a detailed cost benefit analysis (CBA) into the potential roll-

out of the hybrid battery storage-renewable generation as proposed in EFCC.

The main findings of this exercise include:

There are limited number of already installed battery storage facilities which are suitable for

providing the fast response, namely: Leighton Buzzard, Rise Carr (Darlington), and Willenhall.

The main challenges of using the existing sites include significant delays in delivering the

EFCC project, expensive modifications costs (in case of Leighton Buzzard it will be more

expensive than use of the new battery storage), and potential future costs that were not

possible to clarify at this stage.

More importantly, the inability to perform the demonstration of fast response capability of

renewable energy resources combined with battery storage (hybrid) as proposed in this

project, should we decide to use already installed battery storage.

The hybrid battery storage and renewable generation (solar PV) will be the first demonstration

of such concept in Great Britain, and will generate significant learning on the system benefits

in the context of the System Operability Framework, and Future Energy Scenarios. Our CBA

shows that should the EFCC trials being successful, a significant volume of extra response

can be avoided by having longer availability of service from Battery Storage and Solar PV.

This will in turn make the hybrid PV-Storage a financially attractive service option given the

increase in revenue from ancillary services that can be attributed to this type of service.

On the balance of cost, project implementation risks, and value for money for our consumers, and roll-

out potential we therefore recommend the use of new battery storage for EFCC project. This will

enable the project to proceed with the demonstrations needed for the future frequency control at

reduced cost from a wide range of resources.

Page 4



Chapter 1 Purpose of this report


In order to meet carbon reduction targets, GB needs to significantly increase the volume of low

carbon energy technologies that are connected to the GB transmission system. The overall impact of

increasing these types of technology will be a reduction in system inertia.

System inertia is a characteristic of an electrical transmission that provides system robustness against

any frequency disturbances and is a result of the energy stored in the rotating mass of electrical

machines i.e. generators and motors.

As more renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar PV and other convertor based

technologies (e.g. interconnectors) are connected to the transmission system; there will be a

corresponding reduction in inertia since these technologies do not contribute to natural mechanical

inertia.

In the GB the transmission system, frequency is nominally 50Hz and the System Operator caters for

various imbalances caused by changes in demand or generation to maintain the frequency in

accordance with the National Electricity Transmission System Security and Quality of Supply

Standard (NETS SQSS). However, the lower the system inertia, the more susceptible a transmission

system is to a higher rate of change of frequency (RoCoF) in the event of the loss of a significant

volume of generation or demand and requires an increase in the speed and volume of frequency

response.

The EFCC Project Full Submission report (October 2014), provided cost benefit analysis to show that

under existing mechanisms to control frequency response used by National Grid, the future increase

in response requirement to control frequency is anticipated to be £200m-£250m per annum by 2020.

This cost is based on the Gone Green Future Energy Scenario as published by National Grid in 2014

that gives rise to an increase in RoCoF of 0.3Hz/s.

As set out within the EFCC Full Submission report, within Work Package 2.4, a proposal was put

forward to trial battery storage as part of a portfolio of service providers for fast frequency response.

The proposal included provision for investment in a new battery storage unit (plus two inverters for

increased active or reactive power). Costs were included for trials to be carried out at two different

locations, one of which would allow for combining battery storage with a solar PV plant.

Belectric were chosen as a project partner for the provision of battery storage and solar PV power

plant for frequency response within EFCC through a competitive tender process in line with all partner

selections against set criteria. These criteria included cost and contribution to ensure value for money;

organisation to rate reputation and expertise; understanding of project requirements and the ability to

deliver; offered solution that is innovative, low carbon, brings customer benefits and learning.

Belectric has developed, planned and built a number of hybrid projects where various energy sources

are combined and controlled, including PV, batteries, diesel and water power generators. For the

EFCC bid they provided detailed cost estimates that were verified and reviewed through a thorough

internal review process that included National Grid procurement and finance departments.

A new battery storage facility represented a significant proportion of the EFCC project costs

(approximately £1.1m). However, due to the containerised unit provided by Belectric, trials could be

undertaken at Redruth in Cornwall and Rainbow Solar Farm (3.8MWp) in Gloucestershire. This will

Page 5




enable trials to be carried out at a location on the GB transmission system known to be susceptible to

operability challenges (Redruth) as well as gaining valuable learning from the battery unit sited at

Rainbow Solar Farm.

However, to ensure EFCC represents the best possible value for consumers in advance of any

expenditure, a Decision Point was included within the project timescales to allow National Grid to

investigate the use of existing battery storage sites within the UK.

This report details the outcomes of investigations considering technical and commercial implications

of using existing facilities within the EFCC project as well as impact on timescales. Comparison and

commercial analysis is presented between those sites deemed most appropriate for use for fast

frequency response versus the installation of an additional battery storage facility. Furthermore, the

benefits of a hybrid solar PV and battery storage solution are presented.

Since the initial report that was completed in June 2015, additional chapters and updates have been

made in this revision. The changes are as follows

Chapter 6 Update on use of Redruth site for battery storage; Belectric contribution to

solar PV and battery storage.

Chapter 7 Cost benefit analysis (CBA) for future roll out of hybrid battery storage and

solar PV. This chapter provides a detailed CBA identifying the number and

MW capacity of potential solar farms that could install battery storage and

projected future deployment if the EFCC project is successful.

Chapter 8 Revised Project Schedule for Work Package 2.4 (Battery Storage)

The original EFCC project schedule for this work package assumed an

investment decision point would be reached by August 2015 hence revised

timescales are proposed.

Chapter 9 Legacy options for Belectric Battery Storage Unit.

This chapter outlines the considerations that will be taken into account

towards the end of the project for future use of the new battery storage unit if

investment is approved.

Finally, a recommendation is proposed that establishes and quantifies the benefits, potential learning

within EFCC and value to consumers to enable Ofgem to determine if investment in further battery

storage should be made.

Page 6



Chapter 2 Use of Battery Storage within EFCC project

Chapter 2 Use of Battery Storage within the EFCC projectThe objective of the EFCC project is to develop and demonstrate an innovative new monitoring and

control system which will obtain accurate frequency data at a regional level, calculate the required

rate and volume of very fast response and then enable the initiation of this required response. The

control system will then be used to demonstrate the coordination of fast response from wind, large

scale thermal generation, demand side resources (DSR), solar PV and battery storage. Utilising the

output of these trials, a fully optimised and coordinated model will be developed which ensures the

appropriate mix of response is utilised. This will support the development of an appropriate

commercial framework at the end of the project.

Figure 1 below shows indicative GB regional zones for regional control and the proposed Alstom

scheme to monitor wide area frequency measurements and control the response providers.

Figure 1: Control System Architecture

Battery storage is regarded as a central part of the fast services to be trialled within the EFCC project.

Previous studies and practical solutions have demonstrated that battery storage is able to provide fast

and sustained response on various networks to maintain stability. Connected to the wide area

measurement of Alstom, the battery shall provide fast and local frequency response, based on central

and locally derived response signals. The goal is to counteract local frequency deviations in order to

neutralise them before they become a major disturbance. This has to be done close to the source of

disturbance and in a timeframe of well below 100ms, since this is the typically measured time of such

disturbances. The battery response trials shall be based on:

Page 7




Maximum response to curtail reduction in frequency. Trial the fastest possible rise and

sustained response until frequency is restored or stored energy is used.

Frequency following (Proportional Control; output in response to variations in frequency).

This response could be enabled locally and controlled.

Set-point following initiated from a remote signal in combination with other response

providers. This mode could be used by the monitoring and control system to sustain a

frequency response.

In addition, a further trial could be to use historic data (i.e. over the previous few milliseconds) to

predict upcoming frequency drops.

While the above is a way of frequency stabilisation by actively responding to a measured signal

(“active response”), there is as well, a passive response which is crucial for grid stability: the grid

inertia. Grid inertia is traditionally supplied by the rotating mass of synchronous generators. Due to

increasing penetration levels of renewable energy in the network, the share of synchronous

generation is dropping rapidly as well as inertia. The reason behind this is lack of inertia of the

physical generation source (e.g. solar PV panel in case of solar energy and of the grid coupling

inverter). There is simply no mass turning. A battery – on the contrary – is capable of simulating

inertia, since it may provide a very high short circuit power. Given that this is combined with a fast

reacting inverter, it may provide a “virtual inertia” by very fast active control (<20ms). In this way it

may replace the inertia traditionally supplied by synchronous generators and shall be trialled during

the project.

2.1 The Main Drivers for using battery storage

Demonstrate the principle operability of a frequency control battery on the network.

Demonstrate different reaction speeds.

Demonstrate emulation of rotating generators and their inertia by implementing a very high

response rate (milliseconds or tens of milliseconds).

A direct connection to an external entity (i.e. the NETSO) shall be established, so definition of

working points, response statistics or direct command and control may be done from a central

point outside the unit.

2.2 Innovation and Learning Outcomes

Innovative command and control schemes will be implemented that enable the battery to act

similar to rotating machines, providing short-circuit power capacity, and respond to external

control signals.

Evaluation of the challenges of incorporating batteries in network regulation (e.g. various

States of Charge) and their advantages will be studied.

The financial benefits of operating a battery in the plant will be studied and the development

of a future financial compensation and commercial policy for battery operation will be outlined.

This will provide a vital new tool for National Grid as we continue to manage the GB system.

Page 8




Allow a fuller assessment of the potential for greater competition in frequency response

service provision that can inform other Transmission Licensees.

Demonstrate battery storage can best be coordinated to provide an optimised response

across a range of resource providers.

The response capabilities of new technologies are not currently being fully utilised. With the

increase in the amount of renewables connected to the GB electricity system, it is vital that a

more diverse range of resources are able to contribute to system stability in a more economic

and efficient way.

Potential for knowledge of the capability of batteries and solar PV power plants in delivering

grid services on different levels.

Support the development of performance requirements for roll out of an Enhanced Frequency

Control Capability as a new balancing service.

2.3 Impact of Future Energy Scenarios on system operability

Annually National Grid publishes four future energy scenarios that outline possible variations in

generation and demand patterns. Last year under the Gone Green scenario, predicted that in meeting

the UK renewable energy targets, solar PV would contribute 2.3GW of installed capacity by 2020.

The connection of embedded generation is increasing rapidly in GB. Due to its lower operational

voltage these installations are connected to Distribution Network Operators (DNOs), hence its output

will offset the total demand seen at the interface boundary between the transmission and distribution

systems.

In order to maintain the system frequency within statutory limits, the System Operator must balance

generation and demand. However, as the volume of intermittent generation sources grows, the

demand seen by the transmission system will become increasingly volatile and pose challenges in

predicting demand and therefore operation of the transmission system.

Figure 2 below, shows an average demand profile for an average Sunday in July for the Gone Green

future energy scenario. Historical data has been obtained between 2005 – 2008/9, excluding the

impact of embedded generation and has been scaled against the summer minimum demand values

to produce a base demand daily profile. Planned solar daily profiles have been derived from average

output profiles and scaled to 84% of capacity (14GW). The resultant transmission demand profile is

offset by the solar output. Between the dotted line, illustrating the natural load and the hard red line of

the planned embedded solar case there is some 18GW of difference over the course of a day.

Page 9




Figure 2: Impact of increasing solar PV on the transmission demand pattern (2020)

Against such declining demand levels, there is a danger that in particular regions of the network

where there is high concentration of solar PV, there is potential for parts of the network to be

disconnected. This could arise when there is a frequency excursion that triggers LFDD (Low

Frequency Demand Disconnection) which is an operational method used to correct the imbalance

between generation and demand. If LFDD action occurs, the network could represent negative

demand and further contribute to any frequency disturbance which takes the system beyond normal

frequency containment limits.

In addition to managing the system with increasingly volatile periods of transmission demand, solar

PV is connected to the system via power electronics and therefore does not provide inertia. As

mentioned in Chapter 1, this means that a system with lower inertia will be susceptible to high RoCoF

necessitating increased frequency response to be held by the System Operator. Historically to

operate the system in low demand periods, generation is constrained and interconnector imports

restricted. However, as a greater proportion of generation is supplied from intermittent sources, more

frequency response will be required from alternatives to conventional generation such as those being

trialled in the EFCC project.

An alternative approach is to combine solar PV with battery storage. This will allow storage to be used

to better regulate or smooth the transmission demand profile or be used to provide response during

periods of rebalancing as other conventional plant ramps up to provide a sustained response to

maintain frequency within limits.

Use of batteries would offer the flexibility either to reduce the effective generation contribution to the

distribution system which is observed at these times of stress, or to provide additional fast response

to support frequency containment under high RoCoF events, instead of reliance upon the natural

inertia of (slower responding) conventional generation or LFDD action.

Page 10




2.4 International Experience

In Germany renewable energy contributes significantly towards their total generation capacity. It has

been recognised that due to the higher volatility of generation and demand patterns, battery storage

can play an active part in smoothing this volatility as well as providing fast frequency response. The

four German TNOs, Tennet, Amprion, Transnet BW and 50Hertz have enabled renewables to

participate in the frequency reserve market by changing their bidding/procurement timescales and

established prequalifying criteria to fully benefit from the potential combining solar and battery plants

to ancillary services.

Last year in the US, the State of California passed legislation mandating that energy storage facilities

be installed to support the integration of additional solar and wind energy in order to meet their utility

owned energy storage target by 2020 (approximately 1.3GW)[6]

. It is the first state to do this, but is

recognition that storage systems can support the uptake of renewable technology connected to utility

networks in addition to providing standalone peak load reduction, voltage support and frequency

response services. As an example of this uptake, Invenergy (developer of clean power generation

and energy storage projects) has installed a 31.5MW battery storage in central Illinois which is located

near a wind farm project and solar plant to provide fast frequency response as well as other ancillary

services[7]

.

Furthermore, in order to integrate more wind energy into an island system in Alaska, the electricity

utility installed a 3MW battery storage system instead of connecting more diesel generation as

spinning reserve. In addition to mitigating the curtailment of energy from wind farms, the lead-acid

battery system is capable of providing frequency response within 0.5s if required[8]

.

The Zhangbei National Wind and Solar Energy Storage and Transmission Demonstration Project

includes a total of 17MW/70MWh of energy storage through a combination of lithium-ion and

vanadium redox flow battery technologies. The use of batteries supports the integration of wind, solar

and other renewable energy providing frequency regulation and voltage support to the grid[12]

.

Page 11



Chapter 3 Evaluation of existing battery storage in the UK

Chapter3 Evaluation of existing battery storage in the UKAs a starting point for evaluating existing storage facilities for potential use with the EFCC project,

information was collected using the Energy Storage Operators’ Forum published documentation. In

addition, a general enquiry was sent to all Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) that currently have

demonstration battery storage facilities or are due to install battery storage within the timescales of

the EFCC project. The email outlined our objectives, the reasons for the enquiry and the possibility of

participating in the project. In addition, a technical questionnaire was compiled and attached to the

enquiry to provide DNOs with information that the EFCC project would like to assess.

A full list of energy storage sites and associated technical criteria that was compiled from

documentation within the public domain as well as individual site specific details provided by DNOs.

This is shown in Appendix B.

From the initial information gathered, it was possible to eliminate a number of existing storage sites

for suitability for inclusion within the EFCC project based on the following criteria

1. Battery technology.

Flow type batteries as demonstrated at Nairn, FALCON and the DECC Energy Storage

demonstration sites[2]

were excluded on the basis that they will not provide the required fast

<0.5s response times to be trailed. Due to the time taken for electrolytes to mix that is

inherent with this technology to produce a change in power output, fast response times

cannot be achieved. Additionally, the power to capacity ratio of these batteries is not

favourable for short-term, high-power applications that are being trialled in the EFCC project.

2. Power output and Capacity

It is preferable for the battery unit to have a high power output so it will increase its

contribution to alleviating significant RoCoF by increasing or decreasing larger amounts of

power. Essentially for rapid frequency response it is beneficial to have more power delivered

at less installed capacity.

3. Connection to the system

The battery unit must be connected to the electricity network, hence units sited in the Scottish

Highlands that maintain security of supply could not be utilised for the project.

3.1 Timescales for EFCC trials

Within the EFCC project submission, the project plan outlined the installation and evaluation of a new

battery control system between October to December 2016 for integration with the Alstom monitoring

and control system. This is in advance of frequency response trials taking place from January 2017 to

September 2017.

3.2 Short-listed battery units

Three sites were chosen for further investigation as possible candidates for participation in the EFCC

project. These sites are Leighton Buzzard (6MW, 10MWh, Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide),

Darlington (2.5MW, 5MWh, Lithium Iron Phosphate), Willenhall (2MW, 1MWh, Lithium-Titanate).

The respective DNOs (UK Power Networks, Northern Power Grid, Western Power Distribution and)

were approached in order to discuss the viability of using these storage sites.

Page 12




3.3 Smarter Network Storage (SNS) at Leighton Buzzard

The Smarter Network Storage (SNS) project at Leighton Buzzard is an LCNF project that is to explore

multi-purpose use of battery storage from a technical and commercial perspective. The main driver for

battery storage at this site was to defer traditional reinforcement in order to maintain demand security

compliance at Leighton Buzzard, but the project is also trialling the provision of commercial ancillary

services to the transmission system.

Representatives from Belectric and National Grid attended a site visit to Leighton Buzzard to further

understand the battery and inverter technologies, how the site is controlled as well as the future

operational timescales within the lifetime of the project. One outcome from the visit is that it is unclear

if the control system can be modified to allow rapid response as per EFCC objectives.

The storage system is fully contained within a dedicated building adjacent to Leighton Buzzard

substation in Bedfordshire. The building also houses separate inverter and control rooms.

The battery size (6MW, 10MWh Li-NMC, Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide) offers a

power/capacity ratio of 0.6. There are 3 sets of 2MW battery stacks that are controlled by dedicated

energy storage management units that are controlled locally by a central control system that can be

accessed remotely. There is a forecasting and optimisation system for scheduling services which can

be enabled via a control room so there could be the possibility of trialling both local and remote

frequency response for EFCC. Overall, the speed of response will depend on the initiation being local

or remote. It is anticipated that the response time could be less than half a second but it is more likely

that the response time will be between 0.5s and 1s. The EFCC project is aiming for a target response

time of 0.1s.

SNS is currently trialling frequency response provision under National Grid’s existing ancillary

services (using a demand side aggregator); hence trialling with EFCC fits within their scope of

objectives.

The SNS project is due to complete in its entirety by December 2017 and it is the intention of UK

Power Networks to complete all their scheduled trials by December 2016. Given this, there is not an

exact alignment of timescales between the projects, and there is some risk that the trial period for

SNS could be extended in order to meet their project milestones.

UKPN has provided estimated costs for using SNS within EFCC. These are summarised in Chapter 5

in the Commercial Analysis section of this report. In addition, UKPN will be entering into commercial

contracts for the provision of ancillary services. The Commercial team in National Grid has estimated

a cost for these services that could be paid to UKPN in order to compensate for loss of revenue

during the trial period.

Page 13




Image 1 (courtesy of UKPN): Smarter Network Storage (SNS) at Leighton Buzzard (6MW, 10MWh, Li-NMC).

Image 2: Site visit to SNS at Leighton Buzzard

3.4 Rise Carr (Darlington)

Northern Power Grid (NPG), as part of their Customer-Led Network Revolution LCNF project,

installed a 2.5MW/5MWh LiFePO4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate) battery, unit at Rise Carr to investigate

how a battery can be used to facilitate the uptake of low carbon technologies.

Page 14




The project completed in December 2014 and currently NPG is considering future research and

commercial opportunities for the battery storage unit. In discussions with NPG, participating within the

EFCC project is being considered as an option, and a decision on the future utilisation of the battery is

expected summer 2015. Since the June issue of this report, NPG has stated that the Rise Carr site is

likely to be used for commercial ancillary services as well as local demand support. Indication has

been given that these commercial services could be suspended for use within EFCC although this is

to be confirmed.

The Rise Carr is built up of three separate shipping containers, 1 x Inverter section and 2 x Battery

Rack Containers and offers a power/capacity ratio of 0.5. Similarly to SNS, it can be controlled both

locally and remotely (including monitoring status and alarms, overall system data etc.). This is

achieved through dedicated software that can be used via a web browser. For remote control the

communication time is given as 20ms so a fast ramp response can be achieved in less than 100ms

which is the target response time for EFCC.

Estimated costs for its use within EFCC have been provided and these are summarised below in

Chapter 5 (Commercial Analysis) of this report. There is a possibility that NPG will undertake other

trials or even participate in the ancillary services in advance of the outlined trial period for EFCC. If

this occurs, for the duration of the EFCC trial period, it is likely NPG will have to suspend its ancillary

services activities and possibly compensated for loss of revenue. These services are bilaterally

contracted and since negotiations have not commenced, it is not possible to incorporate an

allowance. This cost exposure poses a risk for the EFCC project.

Image 3 (courtesy of NPG): Battery storage unit at Rise Carr, Darlington

Page 15




3.5 Willenhall

A 2MW/1MWh Li-Ti (Lithium-Titinate) battery unit is due to commission at Western Power

Distribution’s Willenhall substation at the end of July 2015. This is an EPSRC funded project to

investigate the characteristics of Li-Ti (this is the first battery of this type to be trialled in the UK), how

different battery chemistries can work together for grid use and the coordination of large storage with

EV (2nd

life) batteries. The project is being managed by the University of Sheffield who will be carrying

out research studies on Li-Ti cell degradation and integrating battery characteristics. Aston and

Southampton Universities are also involved in the project looking at the optimum use of 2nd

life EV

batteries and vehicle to grid research.

The battery is housed in a containerised unit sited on land leased from WPD. It has a power/capacity

ratio of 2 which is more favourable than the other sites for fast frequency response. There is a

dedicated management system that has a localised control interface, and in addition the University of

Sheffield has developed a bespoke remote control system that separately controls the battery

management system and the inverters. In this respect, any Alstom frequency control system for EFCC

will have to be integrated with the University of Sheffield system to enable frequency response

demonstrations. It is anticipated that a fast ramp response in line with the target response of 100ms

for EFCC can be achieved.

Funding for the project has provided the battery unit, inverters and associated assets for the

connection only. This is a purely research based project whereby the University of Sheffield is

endeavouring to gain as much learning as possible throughout the lifetime of the battery (guaranteed

for 10 years). As such, they are seeking interest in projects that could further the understanding of

how Li-Ti operates, although the provision of grid services is not the primary objective.

Estimated costs for use within EFCC have been provided and are summarised in the Commercial

Analysis section of this report. At the time of the June report, access to the battery for the EFCC

project could be made available from October 2016 (for control system modifications) through to the

end of the proposed trial period at the end of September 2017. Costs are associated with University

staff and contractor resource as there is no commercial cost exposure for EFCC as the Willenhall

project is for research purposes only.

Image 4 (courtesy of The University of Sheffield): Willenhall battery unit

Page 16



Chapter 4 Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery Storage

Chapter 4 Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery StorageThe Belectric solution consists of a 40” containerised high power lead acid battery that is optimised for

frequency regulation. It features a capacity of 948kWh and a deliverable power of 700-1400kW

depending on time and inverter configuration. The same battery type has shown to last 7000 full

cycles in frequency regulation (BEWAG battery, Berlin 1986-1994) and has been integrated into a

scalable and easily deployable stationary system using the technological advances of the last 20

years. The system is equipped with air conditioning and a powerful external venting for continual high

power applications, with automatic water refilling, electrolyte mixing and cell detailed battery

monitoring system to facilitate maintenance and remote operation. In addition it features a safety

system for hydrogen venting and charge control as well as an operating system which includes

operation, battery management and data provision (e.g. State of Charge, currently available power,

remaining total battery capacity) linked to a central SCADA system. It can be operated remotely and

has the same local and remote interface.

The battery system (developed from solar applications) is coupled to a GE based inverter skid in an

outdoor configuration complete with 11kV or 33kV transformer.

Image 5 (courtesy of Belectric): Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) battery storage

The inverter and the control system have been optimised for fast response times. Inverter based

control schemes such as virtual inertia and frequency generation, feature a reaction time less than

20ms. Control schemes invoking the operating system (frequency response, central command

response) feature a round trip time of under 100ms due to stringent loop time control and a real time

interface between control system and inverter.

Page 17



Chapter 4 Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery Storage

Image 6 (courtesy of Belectric): EBU (battery storage) with inverter installation at Alt Daber, Germany

As the battery unit is containerised it can be relocated to further provide economises within the

project. Belectric has nominated two different sites (Rainbows Solar Farm, in Gloucestershire and

Redruth in Cornwall) where the battery can be sited during the project.

The two different locations for the battery unit were put forward as part of the EFCC submission for

separate reasons. The Redruth site was proposed in order to demonstrate independently how the

EBU can provide fast frequency response in a part of the network where there are existing challenges

in maintaining system stability. This will allow optimising of the Alstom monitoring and control system

in conjunction with this response provision in a known constrained part of the network.

Conversely, Rainbows Solar Farm was nominated to demonstrate how solar PV plant combined with

battery storage can provide additional learning for rapid frequency response. This is discussed further

later in this report in Chapter 6 “Opportunities for combining solar PV and battery storage in EFCC”.

4.1 Future use of potential Belectric Battery Unit

If a new Belectric battery unit (EBU) is to be used in the EFCC project, consideration must be given to

its ongoing use for the lifetime of the installation.

As mentioned in Chapter 3 “Evaluation of existing battery storage in the UK”, the rapid frequency trial

period is due to complete at the end of September 2017, which gives sufficient time to carry out

knowledge dissemination in advance of project closure at the end of March 2018.

The proposal for use of the EBU would be to participate within the new fast frequency commercial

framework to be developed by the EFCC project. The EBU would also be able to provide a range of

ancillary services to National Grid through existing mechanisms to assist in system stability.

Moreover, the system would be made available for further research activities to provide knowledge of

the viability and capability of the system. Further considerations of legacy options are detailed in

Chapter 9.



Chapter 5 Commercial Analysis of shortlisted storage units

Chapter 5 Commercial Analysis of shortlisted storage unitsThe analysis below outlines the cost estimates associated with using existing battery storage units at

Leighton Buzzard, Darlington and Willenhall. The base costs shown have been agreed with the

respective DNOs or in the case of Willenhall with the University of Sheffield. These costs are

commercially sensitive and as such will only be included in the report submitted to Ofgem and with

the not be made public.

As previously described in Chapter 3, SNS at Leighton Buzzard is due to enter into commercial

contractual arrangements with National Grid for frequency response. It is anticipated that during the

trial period for EFCC, SNS will not be able to fulfil these arrangements therefore the EFCC project will

need to reimburse their potential loss of revenue. Due to commercial sensitivity with differing

frequency response products that are negotiated, it is not possible to publically specify the contract

terms (e.g. price per MWh or time of use etc.). The Commercial Services department at National Grid

has estimated the cost of these services outlined in the report to Ofgem.

Similarly, the battery unit at Rise Carr may also need to be compensated for loss of revenue if they

enter into commercial contracts for frequency response but this is yet to be determined.

The engineering costs shown below for the existing battery storage sites include labour costs for

modifications to control and IS systems for the estimated 3 month period as set out in the schedules

in the EFCC Full Submission. Additionally, for some sites, consideration is given to warranty

extensions. It must be noted that these are high level estimates that are likely to change and be

subject to site surveys and further investigations to be undertaken during the project. The cost

breakdown for each site is outlined in the sections below.

5.1 Cost summary for Smarter Network Storage (SNS)

Cost (£k)

Addit

Alsto

enga

PRO

Page 18

ional project management 150

m additional project management cost including

gement with new project partner100

JECT TOTAL 1169

Table 1: Cost of use for SNS at Leighton Buzzard for EFCC

Commercially Sensitive Information




S&C Electric and Younicos contractor costs are based on (EUR) 950 per day for a development

engineer to (EUR) 1200 per day for a senior technical consultant. From previous experience of

making changes to th ineer and senior

technical consultants

Extra contractor costs

category.

Operational T IS Architectur RTU / ENMA

systems)

UKPN are still to nego

their estimated budge

UKPN is currently und

part of existing comm

estimated provision o

(6MW low and 6MW h

The contingency estim

for uncertainty in carr

for any additional exp

requirements during t

5.2 Cost summa

Additi

Alstom

engag

PROJ

Table

eir control systems, UKPN agreed both development eng

from both companies may be required.

covering the following areas have been factored in at £1000 per day for each

elecoms resource (to cover any design or mods to communications systems)al resource (to cover any design or mods to existing system architectures)C integration technical resource (to cover any design or mods to SCADA

tiate warranties beyond the completion of the SNS project, but have confirmed

t of 1% of capex based on typical rates for other assets.


ertaking compliance tests to provide frequency response to National Grid as

ercial services products. Bilaterial negotiations are ongoing, though an

f operation and time of use has been calculated; £20MWh for 12MW response

igh) for approximately 10% of the year.

ate is based on half of total engineering design contractor costs (i.e. to account

ying out the modifications as it is unclear the extent required). It will also cater

enditure prior to installation of control equipment, or additional commissioning

he frequency response trial period.

ry for Rise Carr (Darlington)

Cost (£k)


Page 19

onal project management 150

additional project management cost including

ement with new project partner100

ECT TOTAL 444

2: Cost of use for Rise Carr at Darlington for EFCC





The category for “Other Operation & Maintenance costs” includes maintenance, communications,

engineering support and future provision for battery cell replacement. The NPG engineering resource

includes installation and control engineering, commissioning and some project management costs.

Similarly, contract engineering has been estimated for design, commissioning and project

management activities.

NPG has provided a full breakdown of these costs with estimated time to be taken for each activity as

well as daily rates for each resource; this is shown in Appendix C.

It is to be noted that the base cost as provided by NPG is a budget estimate for the use of Rise Carrwithin the EFCC project.

5.3 Cost summary for Willenhall

Cost (£k)

Additi

Alstom

engag

PROJ

As mentioned earlieresulting in a lowerrevenue associated

Page 20

onal project management 150

additional project management cost including

ement with new project partner100

ECT TOTAL 483

Table 3: Cost of use for Willenhall for EFCC

r in the chapter, the battery unit at Willenhall is for research purposes only,potential cost of use, and therefore does not require compensation for lostwith commercial services provision.


Page 21




5.4 Cost Summary for Belectric Energy Buffer Unit

Cost (£k)

Site preparation 14

Battery unit plus 1 inverter 520

Second inverter (to provide higher power) 96

Electrical equipment modifications at Rainbows solar PV plant 70

Electrical equipment connection at Redruth 128

IT and communications systems 24

Contingency 186

BASE TOTAL 1100

Additional project management 0

Alstom additional project management cost including

engagement with new project partner0

PROJECT TOTAL 1100

Table 4: Summary of battery storage cost of use within EFCC

As mentioned in Chapter 3 “Evaluation of existing battery storage in the UK” the total cost for the

Belectric solution includes provision to mobilise the battery storage unit at Redruth and Rainbows

Solar Farm. There are no additional project management costs as these have already been

accounted for within the project.

The detailed cost breakdown as provided in the EFCC Full Submission Document is shown in

Appendix D.

5.5 Summary

Table 5 below summarises the capability of each site for rapid frequency response, the total cost of

use for each site, and the viability of inclusion within EFCC project timescales.

Page 22




Table 5: Summary of battery storage cost of use within EFCC

Capability for

rapid

frequency

response for

EFCC

Cost of

use (£k)

Inclusion of

compensation

for commercial

services

Availability/

Timescales for

EFCC

Additional

learning for EFCC

(hybrid-

renewable &

storage)

SNS(Leighton Buzzard)

Likely(1)

£1169 Yes Uncertain No

Rise Carr (Darlington) Likely(1)

£444 No Uncertain No

Willenhall Likely(1)

£483 Not Applicable Uncertain No

Belectric Yes £1100(2)

Not applicable Yes Yes

(1) The control system changes and integration into the EFCC control system is the uncertain element at this stage(2) Cost includes site preparation, installation of new battery unit, inverters and relocation of battery system

For the SNS project due to the existing control system configuration, there is uncertainty whether

even after the integration of the Alstom control and monitoring system, the target response for the

project can be realised. It is an ongoing innovation project and as such has its own specific objectives

that must be met. There is a risk to the EFCC project that fast frequency response trials will be

delayed if SNS objectives take priority over the EFCC project.

In the case of Rise Carr, there is uncertainty whether NPG will allow their site to participate in the

EFCC project. There is the possibility of obtaining rapid frequency response, though again, the extent

of control system modifications may negatively impact the EFCC project as it is likely that the site will

have ongoing commercial activities. Furthermore, there may be an additional cost exposure for

compensation for ancillary services. At this stage it is not possible to quantify what the ancillary

service cost may be as commercial contracts are not in place.

Both SNS and Rise Carr sites have lower C-rates (power/capacity ratio), that will not provide the

opportunity to trial low capacity/high-C-rate installations in order to obtain the full potential of rapid

frequency response and hence optimise the future value of rapid frequency response provision.

With respect to Willenhall, it has a more favourable C-rate it is anticipated that the target response to

RoCoF can be achieved. At time of writing, the University of Sheffield is actively seeking research

opportunities. Like the SNS project, it has specific objectives and other projects may be agreed upon

during the determination process that may not align with the EFCC project timescales.

For the Belectric solution, some discussion has taken place within the EFCC project so far, leading to

there being greater clarity regarding the control system interfaces between Belectric and Alstom

which reduces this risk. Moreover, since this would be a new installation the risk for access to carry

out modifications and carry out trials is mitigated.

Page 23




The information gathered has shown that currently there is a limited portfolio of energy storage

technologies that are capable of providing fast frequency response. The three existing storage sites

that have been shortlisted all utilise Lithium Ion batteries. Allowing the installation of a lead-acid

battery unit provided by Belectric will provide valuable knowledge and learning from this technology in

the area of fast frequency response. It will also demonstrate to the wider industry that other battery

technologies can be utilised for fast frequency response and potentially other future ancillary services.

Only the installation of a Belectric battery unit will allow the full realisation of combining renewable

generation (solar PV) with battery storage to trial their full potential. The battery unit can also be

relocated to two different locations to provide increased learning of differing site and network

conditions within the EFCC project.

The cost benefit analysis included in the full EFCC project submission showed that under the Gone

Green future energy scenario, by 2020 and with the implementation of the EFCC project, the potential

cost saving to consumers would be approximately £200m per annum. The investigations of existing

battery storage units has shown that the estimated cost of additional learning that can be achieved

through investment in battery storage plus solar PV is in the order of £69k to £693k. Only with this

investment can the full realisation of EFCC objectives be achieved and therefore the full cost savings

passed on to consumers. This is explored further in next chapter.

Page 24



Chapter 6 Opportunity for combining solar PV and battery storage in EFCC

Chapter 6 Opportunity for combining solar PV and battery storage in EFCCIn the UK, there is ongoing work with innovation projects to allow battery storage resources to be

used for the provision of ancillary services to support the electricity system. This may lead to the

emergence of new commercial frameworks to allow storage to participate within existing commercial

markets.

However, the EFCC project is seeking not only to generate a new rapid frequency response

mechanism from non-conventional resources, but to understand and fully realise their full potential in

providing cost savings over conventional services.

Chapter 2 discussed how significant amounts of solar PV connected to the network is offsetting the

transmission system demand profile, and due to its variable output, makes maintaining the generation

and demand balance (hence frequency) more challenging. Furthermore, solar PV does not provide

natural inertia to the network. Battery storage can be used to alleviate the power imbalance and

provide fast frequency response when required. The EFCC project seeks to realise by demonstration

through the project, the benefit of combining battery storage with solar PV.

6.1 Trials for Solar PV and Battery Storage

The combination of solar PV and battery technologies will provide an opportunity to expand the scope

and therefore the learning outcomes over and above rapid frequency response trials for battery

storage alone. In order to increase the leverage and to reduce cost of frequency control, the battery-

based response shall be supplemented by PV-based response. For overall frequency control the

battery needs to be capable of providing equal response in either direction: positive and negative.

This means, the battery needs to be at a state of charge (SoC) of around 60 % in order for it to have

the capacity to be charged and discharged at equal rate and for equal time. Locally combining the

battery with a response provider who might deliver negative response (by power curtailment) allows

the battery to raise its state of charge up to 95% and therefore provide more positive response for a

longer period of time (at the same time neglecting the negative response which is taken over by the

PV power plant). Provided this integration takes place on the same site, communication will be

sufficiently fast and failure rate will be sufficiently low in order to provide response at an acceptable

reliability. A combined system of this kind will significantly increase the value of a battery for the

system operator with negligible addition of cost (cost of curtailed PV energy). The value of this could

be trialled during the project. Hence the following can be undertaken

1. Work out operational scheme for lowering and raising SoC of the battery to comply with the

actual capability of the PV power plant to deliver negative response (corresponding to current

level of irradiation i.e. PV power.

2. Optimise the response distribution between battery and solar PV e.g.

Battery provides 100% of battery positive response, 0% of negative responses from 95%

SoC (State of Charge).

Battery provides 100% of battery positive response, 50% of negative responses from

80% SoC (State of Charge).

The objective is to have an optimal operation scheme minimizing the cost of PV power

curtailment and at the same time maximising the value of the battery as a response provider.

Page 25



Chapter 6 Opportunity for combining solar PV and battery storage in EFCC

3. Integrating a variable response unit into grid management.

A battery based frequency response unit has an efficiency typically in the range between 80% and

90%. The corresponding losses during battery operation have to be replaced by an external source.

This may well be done by the production of the adjacent PV power plant - especially, if the latter is

currently curtailed due to distribution network limitations.

6.2 Belectric Contribution with solar PV and battery storage

Belectric provides utility-grade PV power plants that enable safe, reliable, and efficient power

generation and proven experience with incorporating PV plants and battery storage for frequency

regulation.

Rainbows Solar Farm 3.8MWp near the village of WIllersey in Gloucester is currently operated by

Belectric. This site (also known as Willersey Solar Farm) has been nominated as a potential site

where the EBU and associated equipment can be installed in order to demonstrate how solar PV and

battery storage can provide additional learning for rapid frequency response in the EFCC project.

Belectric are currently in the process of progressing separate planning applications for solar PV and

battery storage at Redruth. In this respect, it is anticipated a solar PV plant will be constructed in

advance of EFCC trials commencing in 2017. In this respect, the proposed installation at Redruth will

be configured to allow trials for battery only (as previously outlined in the EFCC submission) as well

as battery plus solar PV hybrid. This will increase the potential learning gained of operational regimes

by locating the battery at different locations of the electricity network.

Page 26



Chapter 7 Cost Benefit Analysis of future roll out of Hybrid Battery

Storage and Solar PV

Chapter 7 Cost Benefit Analysis for future roll out of hybrid battery storage and solar PV

7.1 Cost Benefit Analysis Introduction

When awarding funding for the project, Ofgem included a requirement that the battery storage and

hybrid solar-battery solution of work package 2.4 be examined in more detail prior to the funding for

this element being released. Ofgem‘s project direction included the following condition:

“8. WORK PACKAGE 2.4 - STORAGE

The Funding Licensee must secure consent from the Authority before accessing the funds,

£1,122,820, for work package 2.4. The Funding Licensee must submit an application to the Authority

which presents options for work package 2.4. As part of this application, the Funding Licensee must:

Conduct an investigation into existing battery storage facilities and trials in the UK, considering

both technical and commercial information, to determine if existing facilities and/or trials can be

used for the Project.

The Funding Licensee must also present cost benefit analysis of potential learning from this work

package against the cost to consumers.

The Funding Licensee must present this information in a report to the Authority by 30 June 2015.

Based on the Funding Licensee’s application the Authority will determine whether the funds for work

package 2.4 will be released. If the Authority determines not to release these funds, the funds will be

returned to customers.”

National Grid submitted a storage review report to Ofgem on 30 June 2015 (EFCC Battery Storage

Investigation Report June 2015). Following this further clarification was requested from Ofgem in

particular relating to the cost benefit assessment.

This chapter details and explains the assumptions behind our estimates for the potential savings

attributable to the hybrid solar-battery installation put forward by the EFCC project. A range of

sensitivities have been considered and the resulting market potential could reach £54m-£83m/year by

2020, with estimated consumer savings of £38m-£59m, with a strong likelihood that these figures will

continue to rise to at least 2030.

Page 27





7.2 Cost benefit analysis: methodology and results

7.2.1 High-level overview

Figure 3 below shows the stages involved in the cost benefit analysis (CBA) of the hybrid project and

maps out the associated subsections within this chapter. Each box represents a different stage in

which assumptions are made and/or results are calculated. The arrows show the dependencies and

implications of each stage. The boxes in blue are intermediary steps and the two orange boxes are

the final results of the cost benefit analysis. The numbers in the boxes indicate the corresponding

sections of this chapter of the report.

Figure 3: CBA methodology overview

Additional enhancedresponse requirements

(MW)(7.2.2)

Battery availability andexpected market share

(7.2.4)

Battery rolloutprojections (MW/year)

(7.2.5)

Solar deploymentprojections (MW/year)

and solar farm sizes(7.2.6)

Number of solar farmswith a battery

installation (7.2.6)

Consumer savings from hybrid rollout(£m/year)

(7.2.7)

Economic viability assessment(7.2.8)

Cost to consumers ofadditional response

(£m/year),(£m/MW/year) (7.2.3)

Page 28





In summary the following questions have been posed and considered:

Based on SOF 2014 what volume (MW) of enhanced frequency response is expected to be

needed?

Based on an approximation of today’s frequency response costs, how much could the annual

additional cost be?

The EFCC project is exploring the potential for wind, CCGT, demand response, solar alone,

battery storage alone, and hybrid solar-battery to provide enhanced services. What proportion

of the future enhanced response requirement could the hybrid solar-battery solution under

investigation in EFCC provide?

o How many hybrid solar-battery installations would be required to achieve this?

o How does this compare with the number of existing and forecast solar farms of

suitable size?

o Is there a viable business case for the battery rollout projections?

What is the potential saving for consumers per annum in 2020 and 2025?

o How does this compare to the £1.1m required to facilitate this part of the EFCC

project?

Throughout the CBA, all costs are given in terms of current prices and exclude the effects of general

inflation.

The following sections explain the calculations and assumptions involved in each of the stages in the

figure above. A table summarising all of the modelling assumptions is contained in Appendix E.

7.2.2 Future additional enhanced response requirements

The main motivation for the EFCC project is the expected growth in the need for the provision of

enhanced frequency response in the near future. This is caused by three main factors;

decreasing system inertia,

decreasing availability of frequency response providers when renewable output is high

an increase in the largest ‘loss’ on the system that the system operator needs to cater for to

maintain system security.1.

As the amount of traditional generation with heavy spinning masses reduces the result is a reduction

in system inertia. This means the system reacts faster to sudden changes in supply and demand and

hence greater levels of response, or faster response, is needed. The projected system inertia level

during the summer under the Gone Green and Slow Progression future energy scenarios is shown in

Figure 4. It shows the system inertia decreasing by approximately 40% over the next 10 years. This

1 The ‘largest loss’ on the system is the largest single generation unit (or interconnector) that could be lost all at once due to afault.

Page 29





will have a large impact on the need for enhanced frequency response during this period to ensure

the RoCoF (rate of change of frequency) limits are maintained2.

Figure 4: System inertia under the Gone Green and Slow Progression scenarios in summer

Analysis performed for the 2015 System Operability Framework (SOF) includes studies to determine

the level of enhanced response required to prevent the frequency from deviating outside of

operational limits in the event that the largest generator is lost in a fault. Figure 5 shows the results of

this analysis (the data for all four 2015 FES scenarios are shown in this Figure; Consumer Power

(CP), Gone Green (GG), No Progression (NP) and Slow Progression (SP).

2 National Grid System Operability Framework 2014, 2015. http://www2.nationalgrid.com/UK/Industry-information/Future-of-Energy/System-Operability-Framework/

Page 30





Figure 5: Enhanced Frequency Response Requirements during summer periods under each 2015 future energyscenario resulting from frequency response analysis in SOF 2015

Figure 5 indicates that additional enhanced response will be needed after 2020 (or after 2025 under

Slow Progression) when response from existing providers to secure against the frequency deviation

limits becomes insufficient. In addition, from Figure 4, in order to secure against the RoCoF limits the

amount of enhanced frequency response will also need to increase from 2015-2025.

Using the information behind each of Figure 4 and Figure 5 it can be estimated how much enhanced

frequency response will be required to ensure that the system is secured against both the RoCoF and

frequency deviation limits. The response required up until 2025-2030 is driven by the decreasing

system inertia (Figure 4) and the response from 2025-2035 is predominantly driven by factors

contributing to results presented in Figure 5 as explained above.

For this CBA the central scenario is based on the data in National Grid’s 2015 future energy scenario

‘Gone Green’ (referred to as ‘Gone Green’ or ‘GG’) since under this scenario the UK 2020 energy

targets are met. For comparison the analysis has been extend to include the ‘Slow Progression’

scenario to show how results would change if the energy targets are met on a slower timescale. Slow

Progression is similar to Gone Green with the main difference being that the need for enhanced

response is delayed, (largely) due to the assumption that the largest plant in operation is constructed

at a later date.

The results of combining the two drivers of the increasing enhanced frequency response

requirements are presented in Figure 6. The data behind this figure is included in Table 18 in

Appendix I and is used in our assumptions for the battery rollout projections.

Page 31





Figure 6: Additional enhanced frequency response requirements under our two scenarios (from all providers)

In this section estimates have been established for the amount of additional enhanced frequency

response required in each year from 2015-2035. The next section describes how we have estimated

the potential increased costs to consumers from procuring this additional response.

7.2.3 Future additional costs to consumers

Detailed modelling was performed as part of the original EFCC bid to determine the cost to

consumers of additional frequency response requirements in 2020. This determined that to procure

enhanced frequency response beyond current requirements, the cost to consumers could be in the

range of 250-300MW (estimated to be needed from 2020) the resulting cost to consumers will be

approximately £250m-£300m per year. Using these results from the detailed assessment it is possible

to extrapolate to determine the cost to consumers of procuring additional enhanced frequency

response in other years.

It was established that the EFCC project had the potential to reduce these costs by approximately

£150m-£200m per year, and that an estimated 250-300MW of enhanced response would be required

to achieve this. Using the results from the detailed assessment an extrapolation has been done to

determine the cost to consumers of procuring additional response without the success of the EFCC

project in future years.

In this CBA two different possible relationships between future costs and the additional enhanced

frequency response requirements have been modelled. As a means of sensitivity analysis; a linear

dependency (to model a situation where supply increases at no extra costs for each additional MW of

response required) and a quadratic dependency (where the cost of additional supply increases

Page 32





disproportionately for each additional MW of response required) are chosen. Figure 18 in Appendix F

illustrates these two relationships. In the near future this relationship makes a very small difference to

the potential savings for consumers, but this difference becomes significant in the medium to long-

term future. Therefore the two modelling scenarios Gone Green (GG) and Slow Progression (SP) are

expanded to GGa, GGb, SPa and SPb, where ‘a’ refers to the linear price case and ‘b’ refers to the

quadratic price case. The results are shown in Figure 7 and the data behind this figure is provided in

Table 18 of Appendix I.

Figure 7: Cost to consumers in lieu of EFCC of procuring additional response in the Gone Green and SlowProgression scenarios and under the two cost-requirement dependency cases; linear (a – dashed line) and

quadratic (b – solid line).

It should be noted that the linear case is considered to be a lower bound since increasing response

requirements are likely to lead to an increase in cost per MW of response as the service becomes

more valuable to the system operator. The GG and SP scenarios with the same cost dependency

assumptions arrive at similar costs in each case but with a delay of approximately five years for the

Slow Progression scenario. It should also be noted that although there are large differences between

the two ‘a’ and ‘b’ options in the long-term, our CBA focuses predominantly on the 2018-2025 window.

The original EFCC bid considers only the potential savings in 2020. The more detailed analysis

presented here illustrates how any savings in 2020 will only be a fraction of the potential in future

years. Therefore the figures quoted for 2020 should be understood to be very conservative regarding

the potential benefits from the EFCC project. Although uncertainty surrounding assumptions

increases in later years there is a clear upward trend for the value of the project.

Having determined the future additional costs to the consumer of procuring frequency response in the

absence of the EFCC project, the potential for battery-solar hybrid projects to provide enhanced

frequency response in terms of availability and participation in the market is considered in the

following section.

Page 33





7.2.4 Battery availability and service provision assumptions

In the following analysis all batteries are considered to be those located at solar farms in the hybrid

arrangement proposed by the EFCC project. For this CBA it is assumed that a battery used for

enhanced frequency response will be available approximately 95% of the time for providing the

service. Availability is one aspect of enhanced frequency response provision from batteries that EFCC

intends to explore. Since the proposed battery will be located at a solar farm with a higher rated

capacity than the battery, one operational model would be that solar power is used to charge the

battery after use, and during the day, to leave it charged for the overnight period if inertia is expected

to be low (such as the prediction of high winds).

During periods when inertia is high and it is not needed for frequency response the battery can be

operated for other purposes and access other revenue streams. No assumptions have been made

about the revenue available to a battery from other services and markets, but it is likely that any

battery installed would be operated for multiple purposes. Certainly the prevention of solar curtailment

will be a natural choice for the battery.

Of all of the additional enhanced frequency response required in future, the proportion that batteries

could provide will depend on the number of batteries installed in GB, the cost-competitiveness of

other potential providers, and the technical capabilities of batteries compared to other providers. For

this CBA a range of 30%-45% is used for the contribution of batteries to the provision of additional

enhanced frequency response from 2020 onwards.

Current market intelligence for an enhanced response service is showing battery storage as playing a

significant role amongst other service providers (i.e. greater than 80%). However, this is based on the

existing industry perception of the value of frequency response provision within business as usual

services. The EFCC project is trialling other technologies for enhanced frequency response that

currently don’t provide these services to National Grid (e.g. wind, solar) in addition to CCGT and

demand side response. In so doing, it is anticipated that the demonstration of the various technology

capabilities as well as the development of a supporting commercial service (Work Package 6), will

bring more providers into the market. As these aspects are being explored within the EFCC project,

any estimate made now of the market share attributable to batteries is very subjective but will become

more evident as the project develops.

In the figures that follow a central value of 37.5% ‘market share’ for the batteries is used, with error

bars representing the effects of considering the whole 30%-45% range.

Having established battery participation assumptions regarding enhanced frequency response

provision, the next section determines the required rollout of batteries needed to meet the service

provision levels required.

Page 34





7.2.5 Battery rollout projections

Using the assumptions set out in the previous section regarding battery availability and market share,

the projected rollout of batteries in solar farms under our Gone Green and Slow Progression

scenarios can be established. Starting with the total additional enhanced frequency response

requirements for each year, this is multiplied by the percentage of the provision estimated from the

batteries (30%-45% range) and divided by 95% for availability. The projected number of batteries

deployed in 2019 has been reduced to allow for a small delay in installation pick-up following the

completion of EFCC.

The potential savings from the EFCC project used in the CBA for the original bid document were

based on the forecasts for the single year 2020 without providing additional details for later dates.

Here, the analysis continues the rollout projections beyond these years to give an indication of what

could be possible, acknowledging the increasing uncertainty as we go forward in time. Importantly, we

do not require these projections beyond 2020 to meet the savings targets. The data behind this figure

is provided in Table 18 of Appendix I.

Figure 8: Battery rollout projections. Error bars show the difference when market share changes to 30% (lower)and 45% (upper) from the central 37.5% value.

The rollout of batteries to provide enhanced frequency response requires a corresponding level of

solar farm participation. In the next section estimates for the requirements for solar farms to adopt the

hybrid battery model are considered along with the feasibility of such participation.

Page 35





7.2.6 Solar deployment and battery adoption projections

Having established the rollout projections for batteries under different sensitivity cases for each

scenario consideration is now given to the projected deployment of solar PV farms of sufficient size to

incorporate a 1MW or greater battery. This will allow us to determine the relative levels of installed

solar PV and batteries, along with the number of solar farms that are expected to adopt a battery for

enhanced frequency response.

In the first stage of this assessment focus is given to the potential rollout of hybrid solar-battery

solutions based on MW capacity. In the second stage examination focus is given to how many solar-

hybrid installations could be required to achieve this capacity.

National Grid’s 2015 FES includes projections for the deployment of solar farms larger than 1MW

from 2015 to 2035. The latest information obtained detailing the sizes of solar farms both existing and

in all stages of development indicates that by 2018 approximately 77% of solar farms will be larger

than 4MW3. Figure 9 shows 77% of the projected levels of installed solar capacity under the Gone

Green and Slow Progression scenarios which we assume is the amount of installed capacity of solar

PV that could be in farms large enough to adopt a battery.

Taking the 4MW as an assumed minimum size of solar plant (because the EFCC project proposes to

trial a 1MW battery at a 3.8MW solar farm) and assuming that batteries need to be at least 1MW in

size, we consider ‘eligible’ farms for batteries to be at least 4MW.

Figure 9: Solar (solid line) and battery (dashed line) installation projections alongside potential for batteryinstallations (dash-dot line). Potential battery installations calculated as 25% of solar installed capacity (greater

than 4MW).

3Solar Deal Tracker, IHS 2015.

Page 36





It may prove to be economically attractive for smaller solar installations to invest and participate in the

new ancillary service(s) that EFCC is seeking to trial. The cost of secure communication infrastructure

and complexity of instruction and monitoring will probably be among the limiting factors. Conversely,

larger solar farms could install larger batteries. The viability of the battery size to solar farm ratio is

one aspect of the hybrid solution the EFCC project proposes to explore.

The dashed lines in Figure 9 show the deployment of batteries under the fastest/highest and

slowest/lowest scenarios (Gone Green with a 45% market share and Slow Progression with a 30%

market share, respectively) that have been assumed for this CBA. For reference the estimated full

potential level of ‘eligible’ installed solar capacity (orange and yellow dash-dot lines) has been

included, which clearly illustrates that the assumptions in this CBA for hybrid solar-battery rollout

require low levels of participation from solar farms, with potential for much greater rollout, and

therefore value, from this aspect of the EFCC project.

Based on the latest data available for the sizes of solar farm it is possible to estimate how many solar

farms would need to adopt a battery in order to meet the capacity-based battery rollout projections in

each scenario. We assume that batteries will be installed at farms larger than 4MW and that the

battery size will be approximately one quarter of the rated ac power capacity of the solar farm. We

also assume that the number of participating solar farms in each size range is proportional to the

number of solar farms in the size range. More information on the assumptions made for these

calculations is given in Appendix G.

Figure 10 shows the approximate number of solar farms expected to adopt a battery under each

scenario. If more of the larger solar farms install batteries of approximately ¼ of the solar installed

capacity or larger, then fewer farms would need to adopt a battery to reach the projected rollouts

assumed. Since it is probable that larger solar farms are more likely to install batteries than smaller

farms due to economies of scale and greater potential of curtailment, our estimates are at the

conservative end of the spectrum (likely that fewer solar farms will need to participate to hit projected

targets).

Figure 10: Number of participating solar farms under each scenario

Page 37





We estimate that the number of solar farms larger than 4MW will grow from approximately 500 to 800

farms between 2019 and 20354. The low levels of battery rollout required gives confidence that our

battery installation projections are feasible and that participation from a conservatively low proportion

of the solar farms5

would achieve the savings described later in this CBA.

Having established the required battery rollout and solar participation, in the next section the market

potential for enhanced frequency response is considered, and estimates provided for the potential

consumer savings from the EFCC project.

7.2.7 Market potential for the hybrid project and possible consumer savings

The additional costs of procuring additional frequency response in future have been discussed in

section 7.2.3. These costs represent the market potential for a new enhanced frequency response

service. Having determined the future costs from extrapolation of the 2020 modelling data these have

been divided by the MW required each year to obtain the extrapolated cost per MW of response out to

2035. Multiplying by the response required from batteries in each year, which takes market share

assumptions into account, it is possible to obtain the maximum that a purely economically driven

consumer would be willing to pay for the enhanced response from batteries. This is the market

potential for the service.

Figure 11 shows the results for the two Gone Green scenarios. This clearly shows that there is large

potential for savings beyond 2020, which will depend largely on how the value of enhanced frequency

response changes and what percent of the service is provided by batteries (represented by the error

bars). As stated previously, the estimated market potential in 2020 has very conservatively ignored

the increasing trend in potential savings.

4Based on an approximate ratio of installed solar capacity in farms greater than 4MW to number of solar farms of

10:1 (Solar Deal Tracker, IHS 2015)5

Approximately 10% of solar farms in 2020 would be participating under Gone Green, rising to around 20%participation 2025 assuming a ratio of 10MW installed capacity to 1 farm

Page 38





Figure 11: Market potential for batteries under GGa and GGb, with error bars showing the effects of considering arange for the market share; 30-45% around the central value of 37.5%

The equivalent results under our Slow Progression scenarios are shown in Figure 12. Although it

takes longer for the savings to be realised, ultimately the results are very similar to the Gone Green

scenarios. This gives us confidence in the long-term value of the EFCC project.

Figure 12: Market potential for batteries under SPa and SPb

Page 39





The market potential for batteries in 2020, 2025 and 2030 are shown in closer detail under each

scenario in the following figures.

Figure 13: Market Potential in 2020 (£m/year)

The market potential for batteries under Gone Green in 2020 is in the range of approximately £55m-

£80m.

Figure 14: Market Potential in 2025

In 2025 under Gone Green the market potential has increased significantly and shows a much larger

spread due to the uncertainties in our assumptions (£150m/year – £440m/year). The delay under

Slow Progression is marked but still covers the £70m/year - £125m/year range.

Page 40





Figure 15: Market Potential in 2030

Naturally by 2030 a wide spread of market potential across the four scenarios is shown including

sensitivity analysis (£155m/year - £460m/year). The assumptions surrounding the value of enhanced

frequency response play a larger role as seen from the difference between the ‘a’ and ‘b’ (linear and

quadratic consumer cost savings) scenarios. Even under SPa (Slow Progression, linear cost saving),

the most conservative scenario in terms of market potential for hybrid solar-battery we see levels of

approximately £150m/year by 2030.

The potential savings for consumers are bounded above by the market potential. This is the maximum

amount that consumers would be prepared to pay for enhanced response because any higher and

the alternative existing service providers would be cheaper. Up until this point no assumptions have

been about how much batteries would be paid for providing enhanced frequency response. To

propose a £/MWh value for the service would presuppose the result of a tendering process for a

service that will be developed as part of the EFCC project. However, in order to get an estimate for

the potential savings to the consumer of the project, we have chosen to assume a value for the price

per MWh of enhanced frequency response availability, to show the impact on consumer savings.

These payments to batteries are subtracted for the response service from the market potential to

estimate the potential savings for consumers under these assumptions. The results are highly

dependent on the number of players in the market, the costs of batteries, and the hours of the year

that we contract the service for, among other variables. Operation cost and service contract provision

will be investigated as part of the EFCC project.

For this CBA it is assumed that the number of hours in the year when the enhanced frequency

response service will be tendered for will be approximately the same as the number of hours in the

year when the rate of change of frequency (RoCoF) is greater than 0.125Hz/s. This was calculated as

a percentage of the year as part of the modelling for the 2015 System Operability Framework. Further

details are given in Appendix H. For each year we can therefore determine the number of hours when

the batteries will be contracted, with the MW rating already determined in section 7.2.5. An availability

payment of £XX/MW/h is assumed for the enhanced frequency response6

in all years. This value has

been used as it represents an approximate cost National Grid has already discussed with response

6This value is highly subjective and should not be taken as representative of the price that National Grid expects

for tenders for this service.

Page 41





providers for contracting static frequency response. It can be argued that the availability payment

could be higher for future low inertia scenarios as the service becomes more valuable to maintain

system stability. The potential payment to batteries and other service providers being trialled will be

explored in the development of the new commercial service as part of the EFCC project. In addition,

future enhanced frequency response providers are expected to be called upon to provide frequency

response very few times over the course of the year; hence utilisation payments have been ignored in

the analysis.

The figures below show a comparison between the market potential and savings to consumers in

2020 and 2025 under our two scenarios. The results are shown as a range across all sensitivities

within each of the Gone Green and Slow Progression scenarios (a and b for the three market share

sensitivities).

Figure 16: Market potential and one estimate for consumer savings under Gone Green in 2020 and 2025

Page 42





Figure 17: Market potential and one estimate for consumer savings under Slow Progression in 2020 and 2025

These figures show that in both scenarios, by 2020 for Gone Green, (closer to 2025 for Slow

Progression); the potential savings to the consumer from the EFCC project are far higher than the

funds requested (£1,122,820). The savings presented are savings per year, expected to increase

year on year at least towards 2030. As the price of batteries reduces and more players enter the

market the cost to consumers of procuring the response will decrease. The importance of the EFCC

project is to determine the optimal commercial framework to allow full market participation and to

understand the technical capabilities of a range of potentially viable technologies to ensure service

reliability and optimal contracting.

Having shown the economic viability of the EFCC project under a range of assumptions, the final

stage in our assessment is to consider the economic viability of our battery-solar hybrid rollout.

7.2.8 Economic viability considerations

In this section the validity of battery rollout projections is outlined by examining the economic

feasibility of a battery built to provide enhanced frequency response is considered. The approach is to

compare the net present value of the revenue for a battery over its lifetime with the estimated net

present value of the lifetime costs. Under the assumptions outlined, a battery built in 2019 that

becomes fully operational by 2020 could expect a return on investment of approximately 17%. In

future years the revenue per MW of installed capacity will increase and the cost of batteries is

expected to decrease, hence a slow initial rollout that grows over time has a strong chance of

economic viability. The methods and results are discussed below.

Page 43





Table 6 below contains the assumptions in the cost benefit analysis for a 1MW battery under the

Gone Green and Slow Progression scenarios.

Table 6: Battery economic viability assessment assumptions

Assumption Justification and comments Potential learning from EFCC

Battery lifespan 10 yearsLiterature typically quotes 8-15 yearsdepending on usage

Understanding of how usagefor enhanced frequencyresponse affects lifespan anddegradation

Battery CAPEX £1,122,820

Cost of the battery-solar hybrid EFCCproject. Likely to decrease as the costof batteries decreases but we don’tassume this

Battery OPEX £10,000/yr

Literature quotes fixed OPEX forLithium-ion batteries used forfrequency response as $6500-$9200/MW-yr, we round up to beconservative

7

Clear learning outcome fromthe project

WACC 5.3%Upper limit of the WACC quoted forthe cap and floor to be applied to theUK interconnector regime

8

Discount rate 3.5% Standard UK discount rate n/a

Service payment £XX/MWhApproximate current cost of existingfrequency response

Commercial arrangements tobe fully explored

Service availabilityAccording toRoCoFrequirements

See Appendix H for full detailsAvailability and operationalmodels will be investigated

The data behind the economic viability assessment for a 1MW battery under the Gone Green and

Slow Progression scenarios are presented in Table 7.

7Table B-28 in DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA

8OFGEM Financeability study on the development of a regulatory regime for interconnector investment based on

a cap and floor approach, 2013. The WACC values are quoted as 4.3% (floor), 4.7% (midpoint) and 5.3% (cap)and we chose the cap value since it is the most conservative of the three values.

Page 44





Table 7: Economic viability assessment for a 1MW battery built in 2019, beginning operation in 2020 under Gone

Green and Slow Progression

Year CAPEX (£) OPEX (£)Revenue (£/MW-yr)

Gone Green Slow Progression

2019 1,122,820 0 02020 10,000 181770 1664402021 10,000 188778 1703822022 10,000 195786 1743242023 10,000 202794 1782662024 10,000 209802 1822082025 10,000 216810 1861502026 10,000 216810 1861502027 10,000 216810 1938152028 10,000 216810 2014802029 10,000 216810 209145

Total Net PresentValue:

1,230,2591,436,425

1,285,598

Benefits – Costs: 206,167 55,340Return on

Investment (%):16.8% 4.5%

The business case for batteries in 2020 is far stronger under Gone Green than under Slow

Progression, which supports our rollout projections for Gone Green being over twice as high in the

first few years following the EFCC project compared with under Slow Progression. The number of

batteries installed in 2020 under Gone Green is reached under Slow Progression by 2025. The

equivalent results as above for a battery constructed by 2025 under Slow Progression suggest that

the expected return on investment over the battery lifetime is approximately 21%. This supports our

battery rollout projections for Slow Progression which reach similar levels to the 2020 Gone Green

scenarios by 2025.

Assuming a battery is built in 2024 for operation in 2025 and using the same methodology already

presented, under Gone Green there is a potential return on investment of 117% which is extremely

high. This suggests that over time under Gone Green the price for enhanced frequency response

could reduce significantly from our estimated £XX/MWh, inducing greater savings for consumers.

In addition to the revenue available to batteries for enhanced frequency response other revenue

streams may be available, particularly in the short-term when it is not expected that enhanced

frequency response will be contracted for every hour of the year. Additional balancing services,

energy market participation and reducing the effects of solar curtailment (if brought in) are all options

which would improve the business case for a battery. Battery costs are expected to decrease over the

coming years which in further increases the economic viability of battery-solar hybrid projects.

Page 45





These results show that there is sufficient market potential to justify the predicted deployment rate of

our battery rollout projections. This section has assessed the financial costs, benefits and economic

viability of our assumptions. The next section considers the additional learnings from the EFCC

project.

7.3 Additional potential benefits

The response capabilities of new technologies are not currently being fully realised and trials within

the EFCC project will demonstrate how battery storage and solar can be coordinated to provide an

optimised response across a range of resource providers.

Specifically for a hybrid battery storage and solar PV installation, there is potential to optimise the

operational flexibility (e.g. battery storage of otherwise curtailed solar energy or utilisation of batteries

for frequency response overnight typically when system inertia is reduced). In addition, negative

frequency response (curtailment) can be obtained from solar while the maximum positive frequency

response is obtained from the battery. Trials undertaken within the EFCC project will inform the

development of prospective operating models and provide a better understanding of battery

availabilities. The development of specific performance requirements will be investigated in order to

define the roll out of an Enhanced Frequency Control Capability as a new balancing service, taking

into account specific challenges of incorporating batteries for network regulation (e.g. various States

of Charge).

The development of a commercial policy is a key element within the EFCC project. In parallel with the

technology trials, a fuller assessment of the potential for future frequency response service provision

from batteries and solar. This holistic assessment will provide insight into the market share of

response that the EFCC service providers could contribute towards. It will also facilitate industry

acceptance in order to enable realisation of the potential consumer cost savings at the end of the

project.

7.4 Summary and Conclusions

The hybrid battery-solar project forms an important part of the EFCC project. It will allow us to

understand how battery storage and solar farms can be coordinated to provide optimised enhanced

frequency response. The EFCC project will establish reliable knowledge of the technical capabilities

and limitations of this technology and of optimal approaches for utilisation. Given the increasing

challenges and associated costs of procuring frequency response for system stability and security, it

is important that new and reliable providers of enhanced frequency response are identified to

minimise the costs to consumers of a low carbon future.

This cost benefit analysis has set out the potential savings to consumers following the successful

completion of the EFCC project, specifically from the hybrid solar-battery possibility, and the

subsequent deployment of batteries at solar farms.

Page 46





At each stage the rationale behind each assumption made has been provided together with an

assessment of how realistic the assumption is and four scenarios have been considered to test the

sensitivity of the assessment to key assumptions.

A thorough assessment of future additional enhanced response requirements has been carried

out as part of the System Operability Framework 2015 assessments: ~250MW by 2020

ultimately rising to ~800MW

Calculation of the resulting additional costs to consumers in lieu of the EFCC project has been

explained in detail with two potential cases over time: £150-£200m pa by 2020 (nominal)

potentially rising to £0.5bn to £1bn

Assumptions have been detailed for battery availability (95%) and share of the enhanced

frequency response market (30%-45%), and the methodology for battery rollout projections

explained in full

Using the National Grid 2015 FES we have assessed how many of the projected solar farms over

the next 20 years would need to adopt a battery to meet our battery rollout projections and found

it to be a low number compared to the amount of installed solar farms of sufficient size: ~10% of

solar farms >4MW

Savings have been compared with the rollout cost of the batteries and have shown that a large

margin exists, which implies that the battery rollout projections are likely to be economically

viable: 16.8% for batteries operational by 2020 under Gone Green.

The potential savings to consumers under a range of conditions has been explored and found to be

far higher than the £1.1m investment required for this part of the EFCC project.

Based on the assumption necessarily made to establish potential future rollout costs and savings the

market potential could reach £54m-£83m/year by 2020 (with estimated consumer savings of £38m-

£59m) and far more in years beyond.

Page 47





The original EFCC project schedule for this work package made an allowance for an investment

decision point from the Authority by August 2015 with some contingency provision built in to cater for

equipment lead times and planning activities. In practice, the time in completing a detailed cost benefit

analysis and subsequent discussion with the Authority have been sufficient to materially change the

original project schedule.

Belectric and National Grid have reassessed the work activities for battery storage and propose the

following changes to Work Package 2.4.

Work

Package

Description Existing

Start Date

Existing

End Date

Proposed

Start Date

Proposed

End Date

2.4.1 Site preparation Apr-16 Sep-16 May-16 Oct-16

2.4.2 Install equipment Jul-16 Dec-16 Aug-16 Jan-17

2.4.3 Establish and modify

relevant IT systems

Jan-16 Mar-16 Feb-16 Apr-16

2.4.4 Establish and test

communication

Oct-16 Dec-16 Nov-16 Jan-17

2.4.5 Test and demonstrate

response capability

Jan-17 Sep-17 Feb-17 Nov-17

Table 8: Revised timescales for WP2.4 activities

As a consequence of these changes to activity dates, there would be an impact on the Successful

Delivery Reward Criteria (SDRC) detailed in the Project Direction. A new date for this work is

proposed in Table 9 below.

Work Package

SDRC

Description Existing SDRC

Date

Proposed SDRC

Date

2.4.5 Complete demonstration of storage

response to frequency events and their

capability to respond to proportion to rate

of change of frequency

1st

October 2017 1st

December 2017

Table 9: Revised SDRC for WP2.4.5

If investment in the Belectric battery storage unit is approved by the Authority for the project to

progress with a hybrid solar PV and battery storage trial, then National Grid will formally request an

amendment to the Project Direction to change this SDRC.

Page 48



Chapter 9 Legacy options for Belectric Storage Unit

Chapter 9 Legacy options for Belectric Battery Storage Unit

Investment in the battery storage unit provided by Belectric will for the first time demonstrate

frequency response from lead-acid technology in GB. As outlined in Chapter 4, this unit is

containerised and will be relocated during the project to enable trials to take place in differing parts of

the transmission network

However, as the battery storage unit would be funded under the Network Innovation Competition

(NIC) mechanism, National Grid will make the unit available to third parties to deliver knowledge of

the capability of the system. Due to the containerised solution, this offers a wide range of future

possibilities for use and research opportunities for the battery unit at the end of the EFCC project.

Below are the considerations that will be taken into account towards the end of the project when

reviewing the ongoing usage of the battery with regards to the potential consumer benefits

Cost of operating and maintaining the battery in order to retain it for use by other innovation

projects

Potential use either by National Grid or other Network Operators to carry out further trials or

projects

If no interest is expressed from the regulated community, the possibility of other parties to buy

the unit in the open market.

As the project will close in March 2018, at this stage it is not possible to fully evaluate these options

for the battery that could arise. Each possibility will be reviewed and assessed by the Project Steering

Committee and recommendations made via the project governance structure for final approval by

National Grid’s System Operator (SO) Innovation Board. The EFCC Project Hierarchy is shown in

Appendix J

Page 49



Chapter 10 Recommendations

Chapter 10 Recommendations

This report proposes that the Belectric battery storage unit be included within the EFCC project. It is

the only option that is known to be capable of delivering the outcomes of rapid frequency response for

the project, while mitigating the uncertainty of incurring further costs without risking delays to project

timescales.

The Belectric battery will be the first based on flooded lead-acid technology (which is significantly

cheaper than lithium-ion) will be used as a standalone frequency response unit in GB. This will give a

comparison of investment cost, operational cost, lifetime and reliability between the two mentioned

technologies. Furthermore, there is only one large-scale lead acid battery under construction on the

island system of the Shetlands (1MW, 3MWh). This battery uses Valve Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA)

cells, limiting it to low C-rates (low power at a given installed capacity due to gel filled cells). VRLA

batteries do not compare well with flooded lead acid batteries, since they deliver largely smaller C-

rates than flooded batteries that minimises their effectiveness for providing rapid frequency response.

Additionally they have a shorter lifespan (1500 cycles).

The combination of solar PV and battery storage within EFCC will generate learning on the benefit of

linking technologies and how they can play a role in solving future network operability challenges. Any

technical limitations will only be known if site trials to combine technologies are carried out. An

important detail for Transmission Network Owners is the limited capacity of a battery has to be taken

into account, whenever centralised control schemes and commercial models are developed. Currently

a number of international approaches concentrate on the pooling of units with limited capacity (e.g.

battery, flywheels, etc...) and with unlimited capacity (e.g. gas turbines, coal fired power plants).

Detailed cost benefit analysis for a hybrid solar and battery storage solution has highlighted the

potential savings to consumers following the successful completion of the EFCC project, including

potential deployment of batteries at solar farms. The potential savings to consumers under a range of

scenarios has shown to substantially exceed the £1.1m investment requested for the Belectric battery

unit.

Given the CBA assumptions, on comparing savings with the rollout cost of the batteries, battery

rollout projections are likely to be economically viable; 16.8% for batteries operational by 2020 under

Gone Green. The market potential could reach £54m-£83m/year by 2020 (with estimated consumer

savings of £38m-£59m) and could exceed this in future years.

With the Belectric battery storage and solar PV solution, consumers will benefit from the full

optimisation of EFCC outcomes from a realistic response portfolio of a wide range of service

providers and industry acceptance based on realistic data. As highlighted in the EFFC Full

Submission, this will enable the realisation of total potential cost saving to consumers of

approximately £200m per annum.

Page 50



Appendix A Questionnaire sent to DNOs

Appendix A Questionnaire sent to DNOsOn sending out an email enquiry to DNOs about their storage sites, a request was made to complete

the questionnaire below.

What Battery technologies were used in the individual projects (Li-Ion, NAS, Lead-Acid,…)?

- What ratio Capacity vs. Power is achieved?

- Are these units able to also deliver reactive power i.e. voltage control?

How is the battery operated - locally controlled, or distant control?

- How fast is the communication in case of distant control? Is it deterministic?

- What is measured in case of local control?

By what scheme does is currently operate?

- Frequency response?

- Load shifting?

- Emulation of rotating generators i.e. virtual inertia?

- RoCoF control?

What speed of response can they realize?

What kinds of inverters were used?

- What kind of control do they have implemented (current control or voltage control?)

Are they black start capable?

Are they containerized or require a dedicated building?

Where are the units situated? e.g. isolated, in a substation,…?

- Is there any storage system which is situated inside a PV power plant (and connected at the

same point of interconnection?)

Page 51



Appendix B Existing battery storage site evaluations


Table 10 below shows the compiled data initially received in response to the questionnaire, from UK

Power Networks (UKPN), Northern Power Grid (NPG) and Western Power Distribution (WPD) for

those sites eventually shortlisted.

Table 10: Questionnaire responses from UKPN, NPG and WPD for shortlisted sites

Project Name

Smarter Network

Storage

Leighton Buzzard

CLNR

Rise Carr/DarlingtonWillenhall

Distribution Network Operator UK Power Networks Northern Power Grid Western Power Distribution

Capacity 10MWh Capacity 500MWh Capacity 1MWh

Power 6 MW 2,5 MW 2 MW

Battery Technology Lithium Ion Lithium Ion Lithium Ion

Reactive Power Yes Yes Yes

Operated (Locally/Remote) Remote Local and Remote Local and Remote

Type/speed of remote communicationsRemote control yet to be fully

tested

Fast response time is (under 100

mill iseconds)Fibre

Local control (measures)

Network configuration, voltage,

loading, frequency amongst

others

Voltage, current, reactive powerVT, primary substation demand and

frequency control

Current Operation e.g Frequency Regulation,

Primary Reserve, Peak Shaving, Voltage

Regulation, Peak load Management

Static and dynamic frequency

response, load shiftingLoad shifting

Peak shaving, ancil lary balancing

services & arbitrage.

Emulation of rotating generators (synthetic

inertia?)No No Not yet confirmed

RoCoF control? No No TBC

Speed of response Designed to be <500msResponse time of battery ramp output

from 0-100% is 20ms

Inverters used

6 x 1MW/1.25MVA Power

Conversion Systems from S & C

Electric

2 x 1.25 MW Bi-Directional AC/DC Power

Converter Provided by ‘Dynapower’

Company LLC - USA

ABB 2MVA Inverter

Black Start Capable?Yes but no scheme currently

implemented in SNS project

Currently not configured for black start

due to G59 requirements

Yes but prevented due to G59

protection

Location Existing Substation Existing Substation Adjacent to substation

Relevant for EFCC? YES YES YES

If not relevant for EFCC - why? Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Containerized? Bespoke Container Bespoke Container Bespoke Container

Integration into PV

power plantNo No Neglible PV plant

Comments

on-site controllers support both Modbus

TCP and DNP3 protocols for the control

interface.

Due to commission end of July 2015.

Frequency response available, but

designed to have RoCoF / Vector

Phase Shift protection instal led as

part of G59 instal lation.

Page 52




Table 11 below shows data for existing energy storage sites received from Western Power

Distribution in response to the questionnaire.

Project Name Sola Bristol FALCON Solar Storage Solar Storage

Isentropic

Pumped

Heat Energy

Storage

Distribution Network

OperatorWestern Power Distribution Western Power Distribution Western Power Distribution Western Power Distribution Western Power Distribution

Capacity 5 x 100kWh Capacity Min 300kVA Min 300kVA 5.6MWh

Power 5 x 50kW 300kWh 300kWh1.4MW for 4hours

(75% efficiency)

Battery Technology Lead AcidSodium Nickel

ChlorideTBC TBC Thermal

Reactive Power Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Operated (Locally/Remote) Local and Remote Local and RemoteLocal and Remote control via

operatorLocal and Remote Local and Remote

Type/speed of remote

communicationsGPRS communications

WiMAX point to point radio.

Typical less than 200ms round

trip

TBC (l ikely to be requested via

operator manually)TBC (probably UHF) UHF


Solar PV output, AC property

demand, DC property

demand and voltage

Voltage, frequency & LV

substation demand

TBC (l ikely to be voltage, real power,

reactive power of the site which

include PV output)

TBC (expect Voltage & PV

output as a minimum)

Voltage & primary substation

demand

Current Operation e.g

Frequency Regulation,

Primary Reserve, Peak

Shaving, Voltage Regulation,

Peak load Management

Domestic demand reduction

& Network support

Peak Shaving, Frequency

control, manually kVA output &

Voltage control

TBC (expected to be Network Peak

Shaving, generation output control

and Voltage control as a minimum)

Capable of ancil lary balancing but

outside of the trial scope.

Tbc (expected to be Network

Peak Shaving, generation

output control and Voltage

control as a minimum)

Peak Shaving, Balancing Var flow.

and arbitrage.

Capable of ancil lary balancing but

outside of the trial scope.

Emulation of rotating

generators (synthetic

inertia?)

No Not confirmed TBC but probably not TBC Real inertia from rotating mass

RoCoF control? No No TBC TBC Yes

Speed of responseTBC

TBC TBC

Inverters used Studer off grid invertersPrinceton Power

InvertersTBC TBC No inverters required

Black Start Capable?

Protection, Inverters are

capable of off grid

environments but currently

not configured for black

start due to G59

requirements

Protection, Inverters are

capable of off grid

environments but currently not

configured for black start due

to G59 requirements

TBC (probably not) Tbc (probably not)Has capability but G59 protection

requirements prevent this

LocationDomestic Installation and

Existing SubstationExisting Substation On PV generation site On PV generation site Existing Substation

Relevant for EFCC? No No No No No

If not relevant for EFCC - why? Power/capacity too small

Power/capacity is too small

also slow response due to Flow

Battery type

Power/capacity too small Power/capacity too small

Not battery storage and the

response time of the system is far

too high for the given project

Containerized?No, custom installation at each

siteTBC TBC Within a building

Integration into PV

power plantYes No Yes Yes No

Comments

Vector Phase Shift protection

instal led as part of G59

instal lation

Vector Phase Shift protection

installed as part of G59

instal lation

Project in procurement phase. Any

frequency response TBC. However,

RoCoF / Vector Phase Shift

protection instal led as part of G59

instal lation

Project in procurement phase.

Any frequency response TBC.

However, RoCoF / Vector Phase

Shift protection instal led as

part of G59 instal lation

Frequency response available, but

designed to have RoCoF / Vector

Phase Shift protection installed as

part of G59 instal lation. Real

inertia provided by rotating mass

12kWh Capacity split

between 32 single phase

units ~ 2kW capacity

Table 11: Questionnaire responses for WPD energy storage sites

Page 53




The following table (Table 12) show data for existing energy storage sites compiled from publically

available information.

Table 12: Data for other energy storage sites

Project NameCLNR

High Northgate

CLNR

Wooler Ramsey

CLNR

Maltby

CLNR

Wooler St Mary

CLNR

Harrowgate Hill

Distribution Network OperatorNorthern Power

Grid

Northern Power

Grid

Northern Power

Grid

Northern Power

Grid

Northern Power

Grid

Capacity 200kWh Capacity 200kWh Capacity 100kWh Capacity 100kWh Capacity 100kWh Capacity

Power 100 kW 50 kW

Battery Technology Lithium Ion Lithium Ion Lithium Ion Lithium Ion Lithium Ion

Reactive Power

Operated (Locally/Remote) Remote Remote Remote Remote

Type/speed of remote communications

Local control (measures) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Current Operation e.g Frequency

Regulation, Primary Reserve, Peak

Shaving, Voltage Regulation, Peak

load Management

Emulation of rotating generators

(synthetic inertia?)

RoCoF control?

Speed of response

Inverters used


Location Existing Substation Existing Substation New Substation Existing SubstationExisting

Substation

Relevant for EFCC? No No No No No

If not relevant for EFCC - why?Power/capacity is

too small

Power/capacity is

too small

Power/capacity is

too small

Power/capacity is

too small

Power/capacity is

too small

Containerized? Bespoke Container Bespoke Container Bespoke Container Bespoke Container Bespoke Container

Integration into PV

power plant

Comments

Page 54




Project Name ChalveyOrkney Energy

Storage Park

NINES

Shetland

NINES

Shetland

Nairn Flow

Battery TrialHemsby

Distribution Network

OperatorSSE SSE SSE SSE SSE UK Power Networks

Capacity25kWh Capacity

(ave efficiency 80%)500kWh Capacity 6MWh Capacity 3MWh Capacity 150kWh 200kWh Capacity

Power 2 MW 1 MW 1 MW 100kWp 200 kW

Battery Technology Lithium Ion Lithium Ion Sodium Sulphur Lead AcidZinc-Bromine

Flow BatteryLithium Ion

Reactive Power

Operated (Local ly/Remote) Local and Remote Local and Remote

Type/speed of remote

communications


Current Operation e.g

Frequency Regulation,

Primary Reserve, Peak

Shaving, Voltage Regulation,

Peak load Management

Emulation of rotating

generators (synthetic

inertia?)

RoCoF control?

Speed of response

Inverters usedFour quadrant

power converterDC/AC inverter

Three-phase

DC/AC inverter

Between AC

and DC bus


Location Existing Substation Existing Substation Existing Substation Existing SubstationExisting

SubstationNew Substation

Relevant for EFCC? No Yes No No No No

If not relevant for EFCC - why?Power/capacity is

too small

Not connected to

the National Grid, so

no use for the EFCC

project

Decomissioned

Not connected to

the National Grid,

so no use for the

EFCC project

Power/capacity is

too small also

slow response

due to Flow

Battery type

Power/capacity

too small

Containerized? ISO 40 foot container Dedicated building Dedicated buildingOff the shelf

containerBespoke Container

Integration into PV

power plant

Comments



Appendix C NPG Rise Carr 2.5MVA Battery Unit Detailed Costs

Appendix C NPG Rise Carr 2.5MVA Battery Unit Detailed CostsTable 13 and 14 below are detailed costs for the use of the Rise Carr site as provided by Northern

Power Grid.

Page 55


Page 56



Appendix D Cost of Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery Storage

Appendix D Cost of Belectric Energy Buffer Unit (EBU) Battery StorageTable 15 below are the detailed costs associated with the Belectric battery storage unit as provided in

the EFCC Full Submission report in October 2014.

Lab

ou

r

Eq

uip

men

t

Co

ntra

cto

rs IT

IPR

Co

sts

Tra

vel

&E

xp

en

ses

Paym

en

tsto

users

Co

ntig

en

cy

Deco

mm

issio

nin

g

Oth

er

Site preparation Y2 0 0 33.67 0 0 0 0 0

Install equipment Y2 0 0 72.39 0 0 0 0 0

Install equipment Y3 0 0 72.39 0 0 0 0 0

Establish and modify relevant IT

systems Y2 0 0 32.71 0 0 0 0 0

Establish and test communication

Y3 0 0 32.71 0 0 0 0 0

Establish and test communication -

Equipment & IT Y2 0 572 0 4 0 0 0 0

Test and demonstrate response

capability Y3 0 0 25.65 0 0 0 0 0

Test and demonstrate response

capability Y4 0 0 51.31 0 0 0 0 0

Travel expenses - Y2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0



Contingency Y2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

Contingency Y3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

Contingency Y4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62

Category totals 572 320.82 4 0 10 0 186

TOTAL

Total Cost £K

1092.82

Table 15: Cost of Belectric battery storage unit

Page 57



Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis Assumptions


Table 16: Cost benefit analysis Assumptions

ASSUMPTION JUSTIFICATION SENSITIVITY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS LEARNING FROM EFCC

System inertia changes overtime according to the 2015Gone Green scenario

Gone Green meets the 2020energy targets

n/a Impacts the additional enhancedresponse requirements assumptionsto around 2025

n/a

Additional enhanced responserequirements are as shown inFigure 6

From initial modelling forEFCC CBA and extrapolatedusing system inertia andSOF frequency responseresults (Figure 4 and Figure5)

Requirements accordingto Gone Green and SlowProgression scenarios(Slow Progression isdelayed requirements)

n/a

Batteries have 95% availabilityfor enhanced frequencyresponse

Infrequent usage allowsbatteries to be availablemost of the since they canbe charged during the dayfor overnight periods

n/a Coordination between responsedelivered by solar PV alone, PV plusbattery storage and storage only isdifferent in terms of duration andlevel of response.

Trials to be carried outon these solar andbattery combinations todeliver learning. Batteryavailability will beclarified from theproject.

Batteries have a 10 yearlifespan

Literature typically quotes

8-15 years depending on

usage

n/a Understanding of howusage for enhancedfrequency responseaffects lifespan anddegradation

Battery CAPEX £1,122,820 Cost of the battery-solarhybrid EFCC project. Likelyto decrease as the cost ofbatteries decreases but wedon’t assume this

n/a

Page 58





Battery OPEX £10,000/yr Literature quotes fixedOPEX for Lithium-ionbatteries used for frequencyresponse as $6500-$9200/MW-yr, we round upto be conservative

9

n/a Clear learning outcomefrom the project

No similar projects areconstructed before thecompletion of the EFCC projectand the earliest new batteriescould become operationalwould be 2019

Reasonable andconservative to assume therollout of such projects willonly start after thecompletion of EFCC

2020 in the delayedrollout scenario

Assume the battery rollout startsslowly and picks up pace as marketconfidence grows and technicallearnings have been achieved

n/a

Weighted Average Cost ofCapital (WACC) 5.3%

Upper limit of the WACCquoted for the cap and floorto be applied to the UKinterconnector regime

10

Discount rate 3.5% Standard UK discount rate n/aService payment £XX/MWh Approximate current cost of

existing frequency responseCommercial service to bedeveloped in WorkPackage 6

Service availability based onRoCoF requirements

See Appendix H for fulldetails

Availability andoperational models willbe investigated

9Table B-28 in DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA

10OFGEM Financeability study on the development of a regulatory regime for interconnector investment based on a cap and floor approach, 2013. The WACC

values are quoted as 4.3% (floor), 4.7% (midpoint) and 5.3% (cap) and we chose the cap value since it is the most conservative of the three values.

Page 59





Batteries comprise 37.5% ofthe enhanced frequencyresponse market share from2020 onwards

Batteries have the potentialto comprise a large amountof the market share due totheir technical capabilitiesonce their rollout getsunderway

Low value (30% of themarket share) and highvalue (45% of the marketshare) and rollout delay tohit assumed market shareby 2025

A large sensitivity range has beenchosen as the market share willdepend on technical and commerciallearnings from the EFCC project

Far better understandingpossible of potentialmarket share forbatteries from projectlearning outcomes

Total savings toconsumers/additionalenhanced responserequirements are calculatedfrom data behind Figure 18(£m/MW)

Detailed assessmentrevealed total savings of£150m for 250MWadditional responserequired, £200m for300MW response required

Linear dependencybetween price and MWcompared to quadraticdependency (Appendix F)

As more response is needed it islikely that the cost/MW will alsoincrease, therefore the linear optionis a lower bound. Quadraticdependency is one option to modelthe increasing costs

This will be clarifiedduring the project withthe development of thecommercial service

Solar deployment of farmsabove 1MW from 2015-2035follows the Gone Green orSlow Progression scenarios

National Grid produces theFES using an evidence-based approach

The Slow Progressionscenario is used as a lowerbound and corresponds tothe delayed responserequirements from above

Both scenarios forecast almostidentical levels of solar deploymentuntil 2027 when Gone Green sees aslightly greater deployment

n/a

77% of solar deployment willexist in farms of size greaterthan 4MW

Our current knowledge ofall solar projects plannedthrough to operationalshows this figure

n/a Relevant because EFCC plans to use a1MW battery for a 3.8MW solarfarm, so we assume 1MW batteriescan be deployed on all farms above4MW (approximately)

n/a

The distribution of sizes ofsolar farms will remain thesame going forward

We do not have anyevidence to suggest how itcould change

n/a This allows us to estimate thenumber of farms we expect to installa battery according to the rollout,however larger batteries wouldrequire fewer participating farms

n/a

Page 60





Solar farms will typically installbatteries with a rated capacityof ¼ of the rated capacity ofthe solar farm

This is approximately theratio in the EFCC projectand the first time a hybridsolar PV and battery storageinstallation would betrialled

n/a This number is approximate but ahighly accurate figure is not crucialfor the results of this CBA

The benefits andchallenges of this ratiowill be assessed in theproject

A battery combined withrenewable generation is likelyto increase the availability offrequency response service andvolume that can be achieved

Existing pool of frequencyresponse providers islimited to conventionalgeneration plant anddemand side

n/a How much contribution that can beattributed to renewable generationsuch as solar PV is currently unknown

Proposed hybrid solar PVand battery storage trialswill provide learning onavailability andcontribution ofrenewables alongsideother providers

Complete integration ofbattery to the grid (notechnological barriers toutilisation)

Hybrid solar PV and batterystorage likely to use spareinverter capacity of the PVfarm

n/a No network reinforcements will berequired to integrate the battery

Site specific technicallimitations will beinvestigated anddisseminated as learningfrom the project

Hybrid solar PV and batterystorage installation onlyparticipates in the EFCC newfrequency response market

See Section 7.2.6 n/a Solar farms combined with batterystorage are capable of providingother grid services (e.g. voltagesupport)

Any additional learningon technicalperformance capabilitiesobtained during EFCCtrials will be gathered fordissemination

Page 61



Appendix F Consumer cost of additional Enhanced Frequency Response

Appendix F Consumer cost of additional Enhanced Frequency Response

Figure 18: Cost to consumers of procuring additional enhanced frequency response. We consider two differentrelationships to provide sensitivity analysis to our modelling.

Page 62



Appendix G Solar farm participation projections

Appendix G Solar farm participation projections

National Grid has access to data on the details of solar farms in all stages of development. The

histogram below shows the number of farms in each size category. The most common size of solar

farm is 4-5MW which constitutes 12% of the installed solar capacity in GB (farms not domestic

panels). We assume that the distribution of the sizes of solar farm remains the same as the number of

solar farms increases. To determine how many farms adopt a battery, we allocate the battery installed

capacity proportionally to each size category of solar farm and calculate how many solar farms in

each size category are required to install the batteries allocated.

For example, under Gone Green in 2020 we expect 32MW battery storage. Batteries sized 5-6MW

comprise 6% of the installed capacity of solar PV above 4MW, hence we allocate approximately

1.85MW of batteries to solar farms in this size category. The mean size of farm in this category is

approximately 5.5MW and so at 25% of capacity we would expect each farm to adopt a battery of size

1.4MW. Therefore 2 solar farms in this category would be needed to adopt a battery in order to cover

the 1.85MW battery installation assumed. This is of course a conservative estimate, and it is highly

likely that fewer solar farms would need to participate than we estimate with this method.

Figure 19: Histogram of solar farm installed capacities for solar farms in all stages of development from potentialto operational.

Page 63



Appendix H Availability requirements for enhanced frequency response

Appendix H Availability requirements for enhanced frequency response

Assessments contributing to the National Grid 2015 SOF have determined the percentage of the year

when the rate of change of frequency (RoCoF) is greater than the existing setting of 0.125Hz/s. The

following tables show are assumptions for the number of hours the enhanced frequency response will

contract availability from providers, based on this data.

We assume that the hybrid batteries contract to be available for the full hours shown, and that the 5%

unavailability is due to faults or other un-planned issues rather than opting out of a contract.

Since usage is rare the payments for the service are considered to be restricted to availability

payments (£XX/MWh).

Gone Green Slow Progression

% of year hours % of year hours

2019 78.8% 6903 73.2% 6412

2020 83.0% 7271 76.0% 6658

2021 86.2% 7551 77.8% 6815

2022 89.4% 7831 79.6% 6973

2023 92.6% 8112 81.4% 7131

2024 95.8% 8392 83.2% 7288

2025 99.0% 8672 85.0% 7446

2026 99.0% 8672 85.0% 7446

2027 99.0% 8672 88.5% 7753

2028 99.0% 8672 92.0% 8059

2029 99.0% 8672 95.5% 8366

2030onwards

99.0% 8672 99.0% 8672

Table 17: Percentage of the year when RoCoF > 0.125Hz/s and resulting hours of enhanced frequency responsecontracting

Page 64



Appendix I Data Tables for Figures 6 - 8

Appendix I Data Tables for Figures 6 - 8

Table 18: Data for figures 6-8

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

Description Additional Enhanced ResponseRequirements (MW)

Cost to the consumer without EFCC(£m/year)

Battery rollout projections (percentage refers to percentage of enhancedfrequency response market attained) (MW)

Scenario GG a&b SP a&b GGa GGb SPa SPb GG 30% GG 37.5% GG 45% SP 30% SP 37.5% SP 45%

2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2016 30 10 19 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

2017 60 25 38 21 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

2018 110 45 70 45 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

2019 175 75 111 86 48 27 28 35 42 11 14 17

2020 275 110 175 172 70 45 87 109 130 35 43 52

2021 375 150 239 283 95 69 118 148 178 47 59 71

2022 475 190 302 420 121 98 150 188 225 60 75 90

2023 575 240 366 583 153 139 182 227 272 76 95 114

2024 660 300 420 742 191 197 208 261 313 95 118 142

2025 750 360 477 931 229 264 237 296 355 114 142 171

2026 760 420 484 954 267 341 240 300 360 133 166 199

2027 770 490 490 976 312 443 243 304 365 155 193 232

2028 770 590 490 976 375 610 243 304 365 186 233 279

2029 770 700 490 976 445 824 243 304 365 221 276 332

2030 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

2031 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

2032 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

2033 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

2034 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

2035 770 770 490 976 490 976 243 304 365 243 304 365

Page 65



Appendix J EFCC Project Hierarchy

Appendix J EFCC Project Hierarchy

System Operator (SO) Innovation Board

Governance, oversight, business alignment, approval of strategic decisions, conflict

resolution.

Project Sponsor

Richard Smith, Head of Network Strategy, National Grid

Provide project direction and alignment with strategic business objectives, ensure business

issues are resolved in a timely manner and provide an escalation route for key risks.

Project Steering Committee

Each project partner has provided a dedicated lead representative (as named in Figure 1) and

employed appropriate additional resource support to ensure successful delivery of project

objectives. The project has benefitted from the continuity of resource within the partner

organisations that had been involved with the project proposal submission.

The Steering Committee is responsible for developing and undertaking project activities,

completing deliverables, raising, evaluating and mitigating identified risks and authorising

changes to the project plan.

Project Director (Vandad Hamidi), Technical Project Manager (Charlotte Grant), and Project

Manager (Lisa Cressy) track and challenge progress against the project plan, manage

interdependencies and risks ensuring interventions are in place, escalate concerns, whilst

ensuring National Grid Project Management procedures are adhered to.

Page 66



References

References

1. EFCC Full Submission Report to Ofgem.

http://www.nationalgridconnecting.com/The_balance_of_power/the-news.html

2. Energy Storage Operators Forum (ESOF) A Good Practice Guide to Electrical Energy Storage

http://www.eatechnology.com/products-and-services/create-smarter-grids/electrical-energy-

storage/energy-storage-operators-forum/esof-good-practice-guide

3. Akhil, Abbas A, Georgianne Huff, Aileen B Currier, Benjamin C Kaun, Dan M Rastler, StellaChen, Stella Bingqing Chen, Andrew L Cotter, Dale T Bradshaw, and William D Gauntlett. 2013.DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA. Sandia NationalLaboratories.http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/doeepri-2013-electricity-storage-handbook-collaboration-nreca-july-2013

4. UKPN Report for SNS Project at Leighton Buzzard.

5. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) White Paper on Electrical Energy Storage;http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-energystorage-LR-en.pdf

6. Centre for sustainable energy; “Optimizing the use of solar power with energy storage, 26th

Jan

2015; https://energycenter.org/article/optimizing-use-solar-power-energy-storage

7. Utility Drive, Invenergy bringing over 60MW of storage online for PJM frequency regulation,Herman K.Trabish, May 19 2015http://www.utilitydive.com/news/invenergy-bringing-over-60-mw-of-storage-online-for-pjm-frequency-regulatio/399140/

8. Utility Drive, “How utility and policymakers can maintain and boost renewable energy’s value”,

Herman K.Trabish, May 7 2015. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-utilities-and-policymakers-

can-maintain-and-boost-renewable-energys-

va/394643/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Utility%20Dive%3A%20Solar

&utm_campaign=Issue%3A%202015-05-07%20Utility%20Dive%20Solar

9. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Battery Storage Case Studies, 2015.

http:http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Battery_Storage_case_studi

es_2015.pdf

10. UK Distribution Network Operators. 2013. Electricity North West. Accessed December 14, 2014.http://www.enwl.co.uk/docs/default-source/future-documents/state-of-charge-of-gb-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

11. INSIGHT_E, Bo Normark, How can batteries support the EU electricity network, November 2014.http://www.insightenergy.org/ckeditor_assets/attachments/48/pr1.pdf

12. DOE Energy Storage Database, Sandia National Laboratories, United States Department ofEnergy, http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects

13. Clark, M.S, 2008 “Lead-Antimony, lead-calcium, lead-selenium, VRLA, Ni-CD. What’s in aname?” http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2009/ClarkPaper2009FINAL_12.pdf

http://www.nationalgridconnecting.com/The_balance_of_power/the-news.html

http://www.eatechnology.com/products-and-services/create-smarter-grids/electrical-energy-storage/energy-storage-operators-forum/esof-good-practice-guide

http://www.eatechnology.com/products-and-services/create-smarter-grids/electrical-energy-storage/energy-storage-operators-forum/esof-good-practice-guide

http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/doeepri-2013-electricity-storage-handbook-collaboration-nreca-july-2013

http://energy.gov/oe/downloads/doeepri-2013-electricity-storage-handbook-collaboration-nreca-july-2013

http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-energystorage-LR-en.pdf

https://energycenter.org/article/optimizing-use-solar-power-energy-storage

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/invenergy-bringing-over-60-mw-of-storage-online-for-pjm-frequency-regulatio/399140/

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/invenergy-bringing-over-60-mw-of-storage-online-for-pjm-frequency-regulatio/399140/

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-utilities-and-policymakers-can-maintain-and-boost-renewable-energys-va/394643/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Utility%20Dive%3A%20Solar&utm_campaign=Issue%3A%202015-05-07%20Utility%20Dive%20Solar




http://www.enwl.co.uk/docs/default-source/future-documents/state-of-charge-of-gb-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0

http://www.enwl.co.uk/docs/default-source/future-documents/state-of-charge-of-gb-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0

http://www.insightenergy.org/ckeditor_assets/attachments/48/pr1.pdf

http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects

http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2009/ClarkPaper2009FINAL_12.pdf

Date post:	17-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lemien
View:	223 times
Download:	3 times

National Grid Battery Storage Investigation Report ... Storage Investigation Report ... EFCC Battery...

Documents